Look, my ONLY goal is to have D’s in leadership because the alternative ushers in a totalitarian fascist hellscape russian client state. If Brandon fucks off to the next life while in office, I don’t care. His replacement won’t be a traitor.
No pretty sure that’s what they’re arguing. Same dumbass argument that leftists made in the Weimar Republic. Let the fascists take over and then we’ll win the next one, and then they all were murdered. Idiots. There’s no weedling around fascism. You fight a head-on with no mercy. You don’t try to work around it, you don’t try to outlast it, you don’t try to use it. You murder it. That’s what they deserve and that’s the only way to fight them.
Even some expected to be in Biden’s corner [including] liberal comedian Jon Stewart.
What. The. Fuck.
Jon Stewart is in Biden’s corner, he’s just being honest that age is a concern. If you watch his segment you’d see he dropped a big steaming dump on Trump.
And, as an aside, to avoid having your candidate critiqued for their age just fucking run a different candidate.
And, as an aside, to avoid having your candidate critiqued for their age just fucking run a different candidate.
This is what bugs me the most, their instinct is to get worried not to you know, do something because they are the ones behind the wheel…
Stuff like this convinced me that democrats are not interested to do anything but show that they are following “the correct process”, results be damned.
You’d think in an election where they claim “democracy is on the line,” correct process would include a fully fledged primary election, with debates, campaigning on a strong platform from which to lead, etc.
Stuff like this convinced me DNC is just controlled opposition, and from that perspective results have been spectacular.
People are extremely bad at understanding what Jon said. It fucking sucks. Sorry, Democrats, you’re not going to win over voters by demanding they pretend your stinky candidates don’t stink. That’s not how this works.
Yeah, well, welcome to why you don't talk shit about your candidate during a campaign. Your nuanced point is going to get flattened down to "even his allies are criticising him". Weirdly, this exact quote dismantles his entire monologue there.
The best joke in that entire thing was Klepper accusing him of bothsiderism and asking whether he had saved democracy yet. Because it was poignant. Lampshading it is funny, but it doesn't change the outcome.
Well, second best joke, the best was Ronnie Chieng going to town on potato skins, but that's neither here not there.
I don't think it's fair to say Stewart shouldn't critique Biden during a campaign just because dishonest talking heads will spin it to their advantage. Someone has to be willing to give an earnest and nuanced take that doesn't ignore valid criticisms of their own side. That's having integrity. And we need more of it, not less.
If Stewart had ignored all the criticisms of Biden during the show, the talking heads would have just spun some other show's takes like they always do. They're gonna do it regardless of how honest Stewart is cause that's their job.
People had three years to convince Biden that he shouldn't run. They didn't. Now you get Biden, and until he's elected again criticism equals promoting the Trump campaign.
I mean, Stewart isn't a complete idiot, he did make a case for both candidates being too old, which is a smarter counter than most of the Democratic campaign, let alone the Dem left, is using to push back. You're not gonna successfully deny Biden is old, but you can convince people that Trump is also, maaaaybe.
But that doesn't change the fact that any statement right now is a campaign statement. People think they can ignore politics for years and then act all surprised when they're told to postpone "valid criticism". Nah. The one thing Stewart said that I agree with wholeheartedly is that this is life now. Forever. And in this life you don't mess with your candidate's campaign even a little bit until after the votes are counted.
They should have convinced him the first time but instead they all got behind him and smothered any opposition because they were terrified that Sanders had a shot at beating their very bad candidates.
There’s no way they could not do reelection, though. We’re stuck with him, one way or another. He can’t even step down because his VP is even less liked.
Unfortunately, that means Trump (another historically weak candidate who just has a rabid but small fan base) has a good shot at taking this.
Biden said he wouldn’t run again three years ago. We already did that.
Here’s the thing that pisses me the fuck off: Biden is old - he’ll be critized about that… Jon Stewart is basically the kids gloves warm up round. If pundits and Biden don’t have counter arguments for Stewart then they’ll be fucking worthless when it comes to Trump and Fox News… and those assholes will be a lot less polite and even in their attack.
I was a voter in 2016, I remember “Thou shalt not validly critize Hillary during the primary”… and Sanders didn’t, he used fucking kids gloves on her and then in the general when she was accused of being a corporate stooge she deer-in-the-headlights and we got Trump.
Candidates will be critized, it’ll happen regardless of what their party does - Trump’s team has had a big folder of oppo research on Biden since 2018. It’s the candidate’s job to respond to that criticism and it’s our, the candidate’s buddies, job to attack him early to defuse those flaws so they don’t come out two days before the election.
Trump is just as old. Ask a Republican, a conservative pundit or a vaguely conservative voter and Trump is the peak of the human form, strong as an oak and in full posession of superhuman intellectual prowess.
You want to complain that a candidate is old? That's the one you are supposed to be focusing on.
For the record, Sanders didn't criticise Clinton. His followers did. Ruthlessly. Constantly. With this exact playbook. He tried to stop them and we all realized in horror he couldn't. The berniebros didn't lose the 2016 election, because they didn't really influence much either way, but they sure as hell didn't help.
Welp, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think Stewart needs to campaign for Biden. We know Stewart is rooting for Biden to beat Trump. I'd rather he be a voice of reason than a campaign staffer. I doubt anyone watching Stewart's show is now going, "Hmm, maybe I'll stay home or vote for Trump instead cause Biden is too old."
Stewart's primary audience is already rooting for Biden. The audience of conservative talking heads spinning Stewart's reasonable criticisms already weren't gonna vote for Biden. Ultimately, I think Stewart has just introduced much needed earnest discussion into what is going to be an insane and vitriolic election year.
I'm not worried about the people watching the Daily Show.
I'm worried about people reading the article above reminding them that even Stewart thinks Biden is too old.
Is that what he said? It doesn't matter, it's something you can say out loud now. And repeat endlessly in campaign rallies and propaganda disguised as news.
I think I may be more frustrated by this pretense of normality than by activism of any political sign. What are reasonable criticisms for? What goal could they possibly achieve? What action can the political class take to address them that is even remotely viable in the next eight months?
More to the point, what do people think is happening right now? Do they think this is business as usual, the populace making up their minds about the future of the country (planet!) based on policy proposals? We left that behind a while ago. At least the trumpist weirdos have a sense of urgency. This beige normcore approach to politics seems baffling to me, and I was disappointed to see Stewart jump right back into it with both feet after the sense of dejected futility he left behind during his last Daily Show run. At least John Oliver (and even Stewart's own Apple TV show) had the honestly of highlighting very specific things that need practical, attainable fixes urgently.
It seems to me that your issue is with disinformation, which isn't Stewart's fault. You seem to be blaming him for the fact that people will take him out of context or misrepresent what he said. I don't fault him for that when he's being fair with his criticisms. Sure, he could completely avoid ever criticizing Biden at all to avoid getting taken out of context, but I do not fault him at all for not participating in the insanity by refusing flatly to ever criticize his preferred candidate. You seem to dislike that he has chosen to speak freely even though he knows disinformation campaigns will use his statements as ammunition, but I certainly don't. I appreciate his candor and I don't fault him for speaking his mind even though bad actors will be waiting in the wings to corrupt his positions.
It's not a problem of disinformation. Campaigns have been weaponizing image since TV entered the conversation, and have weaponized narratives since day one. None of the things Stewart or this article say are false.
Stewart chooses what to talk about. Focus is message. If you focus on Biden being old as opposed to, say, Trump being an actual rapist, you're choosing how the narratives are selected and framed. And if you think you're dodging that by also talking about Trump being old then you're either being naive or disingenuous.
He's not "speaking his mind", he's making an insanely hyped comeback to the limelight specifically targeted towards the liberals who became politicized watching him act as an arbiter of common sense on-screen during the 2000s.
The Daily Show has always talked about the current news cycle, specifically to try to inject some sanity into the discussion because people are going to talk about whatever the current hype is regardless of whether or not The Daily Show ignores it or not.
And Stewart absolutely is speaking his mind. He's telling his audience what he thinks about the current thing being talked about. Which is that Biden and Trump are both the oldest candidates to ever run for office, and questions about their faculties are valid from their voters.
Do you think next week Stewart will still be talking about Biden and Trump's age? Doubtful. He'll likely be talking about some different topic that has been making the rounds in the news cycle, like aid for Ukraine or the Isreal/Gaza conflict, etc. He could've covered those topics last week, but that would've just been ignoring the elephant in the room regarding the fact that many voters are unhappy with geriatric candidates. So he addressed it. That's speaking his mind.
He can speak his mind at home. He's been doing that for years.
Can we at least agree that Stewart's mind has many things in it, and choosing to turn a specific one into a TV show is a conscious decision? I'm not gonna convince you that we should be treating this entire election as an act of information warfare at all times, that much is clear, but man, for the sake of a shared reality, at least let me shake off the blindfold where framing is a random event and the most notorious political voice in a generation lacks any sort of influence.
If Jon Stewart doesn't shape the political viewpoint of at least some liberals, then what the hell is he doing on TV? He can't possibly be "injecting sanity into the discussion" and also be a completely harmless, neutral event in the political conversation.
I believe we fundamentally disagree about what Stewart's job is. He spoke his mind in public for years, retired for several years, and now is back to speaking his mind in public again.
Can we at least agree that Stewart's mind has many things in it, and choosing to turn a specific one into a TV show is a conscious decision?
Sure? But that hasn't exactly been the fundamental issue you seem to be taking with his actions, is it? First you said:
Yeah, well, welcome to why you don't talk shit about your candidate during a campaign. Your nuanced point is going to get flattened down to "even his allies are criticising him". Weirdly, this exact quote dismantles his entire monologue there.
To which I replied that it isn't fair to say Stewart can't criticize his preferred candidate just because talking heads will spin it whichever way benefits them. Then you said:
But that doesn't change the fact that any statement right now is a campaign statement. People think they can ignore politics for years and then act all surprised when they're told to postpone "valid criticism". Nah.
To which I replied that Stewart's audience isn't on the fence and the conservative talking heads' audience isn't either. Then you said:
I'm worried about people reading the article above reminding them that even Stewart thinks Biden is too old. Is that what he said? It doesn't matter, it's something you can say out loud now. And repeat endlessly in campaign rallies and propaganda disguised as news.
To which I replied that your core issue seems to be with disinformation, not Stewart himself. Then you said:
It's not a problem of disinformation. [...] Stewart chooses what to talk about. Focus is message.
To which I replied that TDS has always talked about the current news cycle and attempted to inject sanity into the discussion, which is absolutely true; I won't argue this point with you.
So yeah, Stewart made a conscious choice to talk about... the topic that everyone is currently talking about. And he didn't treat his preferred candidate with kid gloves. And pundits will use it as ammunition. If Stewart had been silent about this completely valid criticism of Biden, pundits would have just used someone else's out-of-context quote, or just made something up entirely.
It appears we will not agree on this issue, which is fine. Just giving my perspective on why Stewart isn't obligated to silence himself when he's not being in any way unreasonable. He's a comedian and a commentator, not a campaign staffer.
Stewart wasn't retired, mind you. He's had a show for the past two years. He only recently got cancelled for speaking of subjects Apple didn't like.
Also, please don't rehash our conversation. It's still written up there. The only possible purpose of that exercise is to put together a straw man. I remember what I said.
You could have skipped to the last line, which is where we disagree and where I think democrats and their larger sphere of influence are repeating a catastrophic mistake.
He's a campaign staffer. You're a campaign staffer. Everybody is a campaign staffer until such time as the opposing force isn't a fascist cult of personality.
If you don't see that, you're part of the problem. If Stewart is back to pretending that he can "restore sanity" by acting as if the other side had legitimate concerns that should be heard, he's part of the problem. That's not the game we're playing anymore. If you didn't realize the rules had changed when Trump won the first time, surely you must have noticed after January 6th, or when the poll numbers of the, again, actual rapist refused to climb down.
So no, his honest statements aren't irrelevant. They're a drop in a pond of, once again, information warfare. The wilful blind spots and bothsideism may be naivete or disingenuous misinformation, but my entire point is at this stage it doesn't mater. They don't belong. We're past those. You either play the game we're all playing or you're playing for the other guys.
True, he wasn't retired during that time. I was wrong. He just wasn't the frontman sitting behind the desk each night.
If you think I'm part of "the problem" because I do not identify as a campaign staffer and do not assign that role to others during an election cycle, or that valid criticisms of candidates are off the table during the election cycle, then we can end the discussion here. As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the problem because you assume, ultimately, that any nuanced discussion is invalid because Americans are too stupid or ignorant for that kind of discussion to ever be anything more than ammunition for the opposition, which I know isn't the case. Have a good one!
To be clear, I think being part of the problem isn't the same as being malicious, hostile or stupid. I think being stubbornly naive about the system working the way it's supposed to has its uses. It's a powerful tool to get the corrupt to shy away from breaking the rules if enough people assume the rules will be followed.
But I also think we punched through that wall like a bunker buster dropping from orbit years ago and a lot of the US is a toad that has been simmered to being full-on al dente by this point. Well meaning people hoping to get through this as if it's... you know, an actual democratic election are part of the problem despite themselves.
I don't think I'm being "stubbornly naive about the system" by thinking it's okay for people to engage in nuanced discource. You and I will not agree on this, and I am not interested in further engaging with someone whose hardline rhetoric has gone so far as to demonize valid criticism.
There's nothing Biden could do to lose my vote in this election, but I'm not going to pretend he's a perfect candidate. And anyone who thinks we need to treat him as such is deluded. Democrats and progressives (like me) knew he wasn't a perfect candidate in 2020, but they knew he could garner enough support to beat Trump, and he did. Will he do it again? No idea, but I'm not interested in silencing valid criticisms now any more than I was in 2020, because the game hasn't changed since then. You think January 6 changed anything? Ask any given Republican if January 6 changed which party they'll be voting for. There's your answer.
The game has changed because Republicans will stick with the coup party. That's my whole point.
If your political rival is willing to violently disrupt the process when they lose you're not having a fair and free election, and "valid criticism" becomes a distant second priority to... you know, going back to a situation where you get to have a democracy with fair and free elections.
That's the shift the Stewart approach refuses to acknowledge. And when I say "stubbornly naive" I mean that acting under the fiction that the rules are followed and things will behave how they're supposed to can be an inspiring, powerful thing. It can shame those who would flip-flop or gloss over procedure or principle to stick to the norms and conventions that keep society afloat.
But there's no shaming Trump and no shaming the trumpists. And if you're still hoping to inspire them into reasonableness when the death cult of the rapist orange fascist is actively telling you... what is it this week? That he will fund a completely unaccountable Gestapo? Well, you're being idealist right into democracy's collapse.
And to be clear, I'm not worried about your vote. I'm worried about the vote of the people who haven't gotten the memo, or are in the process of sliding down the spiral of fascism but aren't there yet. And I'm sure worried about the Rashida Tlaibs and the Berniebros and the leftists who will gladly butcher anything short of ideological purity and stay at home because "nobody has earned their trust".
If you or Stewart think voting for Biden exempts you from being part of that issue.... well, it doesn't. It doesn't under normal circumstances, arguably, but right now we're very far from that point. It's not like this hasn't happened before. That's why I keep going back to "but her emails". Was it valid criticism? Yes. Did it kill thousands of people during the pandemic? Also yes.
Is the tradeoff worth it? What will the "it's reasonable to ask if Biden is too old" body count be?
I had literally never seen this dumbass RBG comparison until a day or so ago. Suddenly, in the past few days, I’ve seen multiple people use RBG as an argument against Biden.
Yes, but it isn’t necessarily complicated. We don’t want people wielding power longer than they should. RBG, whom I admire immensely, was a fool to not step down. Biden represents a political return to form that inadequately services vast swaths of Americans. They aren’t specifically related, true. But I think Biden, while certainly effective at certain objectives, is incapable of navigating the pulse of many younger Americans.
Name one other industry or company who would hire an 80 year old. Not saying he can’t do the job, just saying 80 is fucking old to still be working and it’s a valid concern.
Yes. Propaganda is just promoting a certain ideology over another. That classification has nothing to do with truthfulness or even the virtues of the ideology it is used to promote.
Do you not remember Obama trying to pick a justice at the end of his last term? The Republicans put up a fight and the Democrats backed down which is how we got a 6-3 court
Yeah, I'm confused about this take. RBG should have stepped down because by not doing it she created the opportunity for Trump to tilt the majorities in the Supreme Court. Notably, nobody had the balls to criticise her for it, even after she died and made that exact thing happen.
If Biden dies in office Trump doesn't get to pick the vice president. And somehow he still gets constant crap despite the other guy being just as old.
We're doing "but her emails" again. I thought we weren't gonna do "but her emails" again.
I think she was trying to wait out Trump before stepping down. And even if she stepped down before Trump took office the GOP would’ve tied that seat up, Obama couldn’t even his pick in with a year left till election.
That's why she should have stepped down much sooner. Had she done it on the first year of Obama it wouldn't have been feasible to delay for that long. And yet you heard the mildest possible suggestion that this was the case before she died and barely anything at all after.
So why go so hard with Biden when the other guy isn't even four years younger and was already in a questionable mental state before he ran?
Because her emails.
You know what pisses me off the most? When all is said and done and democracy is a vague memory among the cave-dwellers, we'll all have to admit that the stupid combover and the orange spray actually worked. Dumb orangutan guy managed to hold the fiction that he's not decrepit by spray painting himself and shouting past his brainfarts, and it's actually gonna get him the election, with the cooperation of tons of well meaning "just asking valid questions".
I could see her staying on the court even through Obama’s first term, but when he won his reelection, that was the time.
And that’s not just hindsight either, there was plenty of discussion about it.
Of course there’s also the issue of McConnell’s shitty stunt in the Garland nomination (and the reverse shitty stunt for Barrett) and I will celebrate the day that piece of shit dies for those, but the first year of Obama’s second term would have been plenty of time to get it done.
But yeah, in a just world, a senator from Kentucky deciding for the entire country that he’s going to go against his constitutional duty and refuse to take up the Garland nomination for a year and a half?
That’s when he’s dragged out off the Senate floor, out onto the capital lawn, and hanged for attempting a coup.
After that’s done, everybody goes back inside and whoever is the backup Senate majority leader is asked to take up the nomination. At that point it’s unlikely they refuse.
Because we all watched and nobody did anything meaningful. The trumpies didn't even win the last election and were willing to overrun the Capitol to complain about it being stolen. At some point all the violent fantasies have to either trigger some action or get realistic.
For now with "everybody shut up about Biden's age and go vote when the time comes" I'd be just fine. Because, in case we forget in all the fervor, that stuff would also not have been a problem had Cinton won.
It's intentional from the Republicans, and that's fair.
It's the amount of slack and the "just asking questions" and the "it's reasonable criticism" from the centre and the far left that is the problem. Trump is running after having judges confirm that he raped a woman, committed fraud and tried to commit a coup, and the entire party and their base rallies around him against all evidence.
Biden is old and Clinton was moderately technically clumsy and the dem base is out there going "huh, maybe you make some fine points, actual fascists".
It is infuriating. It'd be funny if it weren't terrifying.
I have a feeling that if Biden dies in office, suddenly there will be this concern whether Harris was born in Kenya and can’t be president and the Speaker of the House should be elevated instead (assuming the GOP maintain their leadership).
I think a lot of the “concern” over Biden’s age is really because they’re terrified of a black woman getting the presidency. They hate her more than they hate him.
If the president dies in office, the constitution requires the vice president to become president. It doesn’t matter if anyone has concerns, there is no mechanism to prevent the VP from taking over.
The constitution also requires that the vice president to meet all the conditions for a president. The constitution also requires that the president appoint judges and that the Senate confirms them.
Look, I’m not disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, the constitution is just a piece of paper. Its power is in the individual people who swear to honor, uphold, and protect it. One party has definitely shown that they won’t do that.
I’m not holding my breath that the Republicans will do the right thing if power is to be had.
Their point is that Republicans will claim she doesn’t. And they control the Supreme Court. Which means they are the final arbiters of this, not you, and not me. And not the plain text of Constitution either
This isn’t about textual interpretation and this isn’t about what the Constitution says. This is about power. That’s it.
The Republicans will control the judiciary for a generation. That means they have sole authority over what the Constitution means and does not mean. Their rulings can be as arbitrary as they want and it won’t matter. There is no oversight of the Supreme Courts rulings and there is no appeal from their orders.
SCOTUS has been captured by a domestic terrorist organization masquerading as a political party. That is a problem that needs to be solved before we ever start seriously talking about how process and procedure can save us. Hopefully law enforcement can prosecute some of the GOP Justices for their obvious corruption, but even that is unlikely as federal law enforcement has also been infiltrated by Trumpists.
This is a very bad situation. But you can’t put your trust in the rule of law. Because Republicans control the rule of law, and they will achieve their desired outcomes by any means necessary
My point is that there is no opportunity for Republicans to do the right thing, wrong thing, or anything at all. Succession is automatic.
LBJ was sworn in only two hours after JFK died. While he was flying home on Air Force One.
Unlike appointing judges, there was no need for action on the part of Congress and therefore no way for the GOP to stop him. LBJ didn’t even need the SCOTUS, a lower judge administered the oath and it was all over. If the GOP had a problem with LBJ’s qualifications, the only recourse would be impeachment after the fact.
Well, they can be concerned all they want, but ultimately things work how they work. So no, that scenario is complete fiction and there is no valid equivalence between a Supreme Court Justice and a President in terms of succession.
I’m not sure what “mistake” Biden could be repeating here. If he dies in office, Harris becomes President.
If they want to argue that if he dies before the election that leaves the Democrats with no clear candidate which would lead to a Trump win they need to be more clear about that.
Harris, undoubtably, would see herself as the candidate as the sitting President, which makes sense, see Johnson - 1964, but her unpopularity even among her own staff would make her unelectable.
But that’s not a Biden problem and that’s not the same mistake Ginsberg made.
I’m not sure I understand your comment, if him and Harris win the election then she would still become president if he dies in The intervening time between then and January 20th. They would have voted for her on the ballot that’s how the election works.
I guess I’m less certain that is correct. Maybe after the house certifies the election it’s fine. But you know Republicans will stink about it, and SCOTUS may side with them,
Well I mean they can make a stink about it and and the Supreme Court is certainly an illegitimate body at this point. But democratically speaking if Harris was on the ballot and won the election she is the elected president at that point. I mean weather other bodies try to illegally subvert the election is irrelevant to that. The votes were cast for her.
The sad part is that’s probably true. Before that was Trump, Dronebama, and Bush - all four of them continued to support Israel so that’s a moot point when comparing them.
The same on the concentration camps on the border, the same on the policies in the middle east, the same on women and minority rights, they just all look the same don’t they.
In my opinion Biden supporters are either the meme for “illusion of choice” or just anti-Trump, there are very few actual Biden supporters (More than half of Americans have disapproved of Biden for most of his term). These DNC party leaders are so tone-deaf, it starts to feel like they either actually want Trump (Presumably so Establishment A and Establishment B can continue to act blameless for their horridness) or are so disconnected from John Q Public that they could never represent us. I always ask and am only ever downvoted as to why I should fear that Trump can run a dictatorship to strip all rights within 24 hours of inauguration but Biden cannot even act to protect established rights after having years to do so.
I’ll continue to fight to protect a woman’s right to choose. Congress must restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law – it’s the only way we can fully secure a woman’s right to choose in every state.
Roe v Wade did not get codified for decades. The problem isn’t just Biden it’s the entire fucking party that only pays lip service to womens (and other peoples) rights. Which is why I don’t care about who speaks up about what, it doesn’t matter what they say when they don’t do anything about it even when they have control over the house and senate.
Not in terms of policies enacted. The concentration camps on the border were built by Obama and continued and expanded by both Trump and Biden, there is no discernible difference between them on immigration. Roe v Wade was never codified, Trans rights aren’t codified, nothing is getting done. The Iran deal just died and that’s it, Biden made no effort to reverse the stuff Trump did. At best some lip service “commitments” like the Paris Agreement. There was more covid relief under Trump than under Biden. Like what harm has the “harm reduction” candidate reduced?
Decades of presidents on both sides of the aisle have supported and sent arms to Israel.
It’s unfortunate (for everyone, especially the poor Palestinians) that Netenyahu is such a fucking creep and sleazeball that he manufactured this whole thing to distract from his deep shittiness. Biden happened to be the guy in the hot seat.
What do you mean he “happened to be the guy in the hot seat”? He gleefully sent more bombs during an ongoing genocide, no one really forced his hand did they?
Ok ok. But in a few months time the realistic choice (unless trump goes to prison and is disqualified) is Biden vs Trump and I don’t think there’s any choice there whatsoever.
Yeah if you have a fucked-in-the-head constituency of 40%, I think it’s time to start fresh. Especially if you fuckers try to make fucked-in-the-head politics the global norm. Death to America, unironically.
The rightwing media is completely out of control and has been getting worse for decades. Without them (and their dark money paymasters) fuelling the descent into fuckwitism, the US would be in much better shape to help everyone.
And you lump your “left wing” media into the right wing bin too right? Because on a global scale, you have no left wing media. ALL OF YOUR MEDIA IS RIGHT WING.
I disagree. There is 0 incentive for the democratic party to not fudge primaries/caucuses in order to run hawks like Clinton or Biden if all they have to be is slightly less fascist than Trump in order to still be voted in. If the last week have shown anything its that it wasnt the marches with literally hundrerds of thousands in attendance, but people threatening to withhold their vote, that got the upper echelons of the party sweating. But people have to be prepared to make good on their threats if they want to be taken seriously.
You know ‘the oppressed of the world’ would not be so oppressed if the progressive left of the US had a long free reign over policy and if other countries stopped putting utter shitcunts into power. Looking at you China and Russia.
I’m far more Left than you know, but realise that unless we play the hand we have, the whole game is over.
Right now, we have Biden. There’s no one else lined up. That’s what it is. It’s either him or Trump come November.
You gonna roll around crying and kicking on the ground and poop your pants, or stand up and use whatever leverage we have to push back against the tide of blatant evil that the GOP not only represents, but literally acts for…?!?
So you’ve gone from baseless accusations that everyone on the left with any criticism whatsoever is a Republican or a Russian, to dismissing all criticism as the actions of spoiled children.
You can’t defend Biden or his policies on their merits, so you have to sling abuse and accusations instead.
If you expect me to believe that you’re not a centrist, stop acting like one.
or stand up and use whatever leverage we have
There’s no fucking “we” here. You have leverage over people like me who you clearly hate for daring to be unhappy. Centrists and their Republican best buddies are all we have to vote for, and all we’ll ever have to vote for. Congratulations.
When the people we vote for won’t lift a fucking finger to stop fascism and instead support a genocide, I’m going to criticize, no matter how much pro-genocide centrists order me to shut up and be happy.
You have a tendency to jump to calling progressives and leftists Republican Russian children, so there’s no reason to accept your assessments as grounded in reality.
If Biden didn’t want people saying that he supports Netanyahu’s genocide, he shouldn’t have circumvented congress to sell weapons for Netanyahu’s genocide.
That’s not slander. It’s what he did. Also it’s not slander because it’s written. You’re thinking of libel, which is what you’re doing when you write the lie that I’m a shill for being unhappy with genocide.
Netenyahu and his gun-happy genocidal settlers are frolicking around doing genocide.
Biden was (mistakenly now) fulfilling a longstanding role of basic support for Israel whilst trying to get hold of Netenyahu’s collar to reign him in.
It’s called strategic foreign policy and negotiation.
He can’t work miracles. He (his administration) has to keep rabid Zionist genocide-aphiles from abandoning the Dems for the GOP, and try to keep the US’s long standing regional ally; Israel from going full NAZI (which isn’t working very well).
My point about slander was the continual use of ‘too old’ etc against a very capable and honest person, when the only likely alternative is a full-blown narcissistic rambling cretin sociopath call D. Trump.
He can’t work miracles. He (his administration) has to keep rabid Zionist genocide-aphiles from abandoning the Dems for the GOP
Sure is neat how they’re a valuable constituency, but progressives are met with open hostility by the party. You’re well-represented by the party and you’re expecting me to act like I am too.
I believe we have reached the end of what can be said based on facts. If you think that genocide joe, despite his fervent zionism, despite his enthusiastic support for the ongoing ethnic cleansing in palestine, even finding ways around congress to support it, that he still is a reasonable candidate who would help the left in the US get to a position of power where they can enact meaningful change, even though you agree he isn’t a progressive leftist that would do anything a leftist person would do, then I dont know what else I have to say.
Have a nice slide into fascism while voting for harm reduction that never seems to come.
Vote third party or dont vote unless the dems get their shit together. Thats the only thing that gets them to do anything. Failing that nothing will change, you can wring your hands and lament the current state of affairs, but the only thing that makes any material difference is in how you vote.
The real solution of course is communist revolution, so get organizing with others in order to mitigate the effects of the current slide into fascism, but if you keep voting “blue no matter who” you have effectively given up on representative democracy.
Either genuinely deluded or genuinely disingenuous.
If there wasn’t the massive existential threat of Christo-fascist authoritarian rule in the US then I might say ok, sure, go ahead and vote for a third party.
How do you think this plays out? The republicans aren’t going to run anyone better, so the dems only have to run someone who isn’t openly as bad as their candidate since people like you will vote for them anyway. They are ineffective in stopping the christofascism, they are not a neutralization of that threat, the last 4 years have made that very clear.
And they never will be unless you give them a reason to get to work. It will continue to get worse if you keep voting them in, it just does not work. They have to change but they wont unless there is a reason to.
Biden helped build that alliance for over 37 years now, thats how old that clip is. And he explicitly says that they would have to “invent an israel if it didn’t exist”. This man is not in some moral quandary, this is what he wants, what he wanted for a long time.
Simple rules for rulers. You don’t become president of the US if you don’t commit genocide for all the rest of the people who want it; they ultimately elect you afterall. But remember if you aren’t president of the US, you can’t enfore any change at all, you have no power.
The most benevolent presidents will still continue to feed the war machine because they wish to be president and enact good. Biden just happened to be in the hotseat in this case, and if it has been Trump there would be war all over europe, nato disbanded and Russia getting Military funds instead.
Biden was not reluctant in his aid to genocide, he was gleeful. This wasn’t some lesser of two evils shit for him, this is what he wanted what he worked towards for decades.
Just because I keep having to spell this out preemptively:
150million USD in equipment - 106 million USD as price = 44 million USD in military aid to an ongoing genocide without requiring approval from congress. Gleeful.
I’m not wrong, says right there in your article he had to “bypass congress” to send the measly 150 mil to uphold US relations because half of your government is trying to sabotage the other half no matter the cost, reasons or means. Do you know the difference between 150 mil and 40 billion? You’re being played by these numbers that Biden “bypassed” out, the entire US government funds Israel.
Go read up on how your government works and then we can chat. Start by your own article
The point wasn’t the amount you dingbat. He is giving aid over and beyond what some mysterious “hot seat” requires him to. Even when hampered he still looks for ways to aid ethnic cleansing. He willingly, gleefully is participating in this genocide. You don’t vote for people like that. That’s beyond any reasonable red line, but seemingly people are willing to let it slide regardless.
That’s not how the presidency works? If he dies, the Senate can’t hold the presidency open until they place a Republican in there. Kamala Harris just steps into the position.
Regarding the term “unfit,” one is worse than the other. One is old and not doing enough; the other is old, actively dragging the country backwards, and did an insurrection.
Add comment