The silence from Muslim leaders on the presidentās 2024 reelection bid is speaking volumes as Biden continues to back Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza.
Electoral pressure is literally the only lever we have to push Biden to do better. Thereās no other way.
This is correct, barring revolution.
Bidenās team is making a bet that we arenāt serious and that they can just use Trump to hold us hostage in the party.
You are incorrect. Bidenās team, under the direction of the Democrat party, have taken away your lever because they donāt want to win. The Democrats have said this, publicly. They said back in 2016 that they would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie. The Democrat party is happy to lose, always.
To say that they donāt want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but thatās not what we see. With Hillary, they didnāt conspire to make Hillary lose. They really did want her to win! They didnāt want Bernie to win because he wasnāt a Democrat. Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party, they didnāt want that. Thatās just lose/lose for them.
If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I wonāt give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.
To say that they donāt want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but thatās not what we see
Itās EXACTLY what we see. 40 years of campaigning on Roe v Wade as law, zero moves to make it happen. Spending their own fundraising on Republican opponents. Espousing positions that people want but never actually following through. Compromising before negotiating. Democrats make their money from Wall St, just like Republicans do, so they have to lie about wanting to win for progressives to vote for them, but they donāt actually want to win because then theyāll be exposed. When they have a majority, itās always a small majority and thereās always one to three Democrats that adopt the āspoilerā role, either switching sides, going independent, pretending to be a Blue Dog, or lying about the will of their own constituents being opposed to Democrat positions.
With Hillary, they didnāt conspire to make Hillary lose.
They conspired to lose the election. Not to make Hillary lose, but to choose the person who polled terribly, to choose the positions that wouldnāt mobilize the voters, etc.
They didnāt want Bernie to win because he wasnāt a Democrat
No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely ahistorical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. Heās very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, heās useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.
Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party
No it wouldnāt have. Because general voters donāt elect party leadership, and the president doesnāt suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.
If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I wonāt give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.
They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide. The country is built on genocide - non-stop genocide. Just go look up how many people the USA killed in each military action after WW2. Then go look at how many indigenous people they killed here. Then try to find the numbers for how many slaves they killed. Just for comparison, the very tiny island of Haiti was replacing around 50,000 slaves (because they were being worked to death) annually. During the Haitian revolt, hundreds were gassed by the French in the bottom of slave ships. And thatās just the KILLING. Then youāve got the erasure of language, child separation policies, which you know about now but literally follow an unbroken line all the back to before the founding of the country, because separating kids from their parents is how you kill an entire social culture, forced sterilization of 1/3 of Puerto Rico and of indigenous and Black people was happening through the 1970s. Both parties are aware. They participated. They think itās fine. They think itās correct. They fucking paid the slave owners for property losses but refuse to pay reparations to those enslaved or their descendants.
The USA is a genocidal settler colony that asserted its own leadership, live a cancer that broke free from its host and now lives independently. All the politicians are engaged, fully or partially, in ongoing centuries of genocide.
No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely a historical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. Heās very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, heās useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.
This is like accusing an Welshman of being a Scotsman. He literally isnāt a Democrat. Thatās his whole brand and his function to the party.
He is a major part of the party and certainly a useful idiot, but because he literally isnāt a Democrat isnāt allowed to be an important part of the party. His job is to be a sheepdog and shepherd us back into the polls for Democrats, he isnāt supposed to actually lead the party.
Alsoā¦ are you implying they treated Hillary badly and caused her to lose on purpose? Thatās a pretty wild accusation lol
No it wouldnāt have. Because general voters donāt elect party leadership, and the president doesnāt suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.
Thatās a contradiction. If the party was fine ideologically then Bernie couldnāt hurt donors because that runs counter to their ideology.
Bernie would certainly hurt their donors, and that itself would fundamentally change the party because it would change who the financial backers of the party are - but youāre also ignoring how Trump very clearly changed the Republican party (yes, I know Republicans were always fascists, but they were cryptofascists before they stopped hiding behind dogwhistles). The very demographic base of the party changed because of who the president was, and now those āāārespectableāāā Republicans that Democrats love so much are on the outside of the partyās base. Bernie, if he had been allowed to win, would have changed the voter base and the financial base. Theyād rather lose than have that.
This is all a ridiculous hypothetical, of course, because Democrats would rather lose than let Bernie win. But thatās it! They didnāt want Hillary to lose, they really wanted her to win - but they wanted her to win with her unpopular platform that caused them to lose. Her platform wasnāt intended to lose, though, and they didnāt give her an unpopular platform to make her lose. Youāre really putting the cart before the horse here.
They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide.
It certainly looks that way, but that doesnāt mean they want to lose for its own sake. Iām not sure what youāre even arguing here.
It sounds like youāre saying that Biden supports the Zionistās genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they donāt want to be in power anymore.
It sounds like youāre saying that Biden supports the Zionistās genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they donāt want to be in power anymore.
No no, Iām saying the genocide is more important than winning. And if he has to lose in order for the genocide to continue under Trump, then they want to lose.
I see what youāre saying now, but I think they want to win and also continue supporting genocide at the same time. Theyāre actually ideologues that really believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They donāt actually want to lose and will be very surprised when it happens.
In order for them to actually be planning to lose it would require a lot of people to secretly agree to lose. I donāt think thatās happening. I think those people are delusionally confident and actually really believe theyāre going to win. Maybe Iām underestimating their intelligence lol
Nah, youāre too credulous. The parties collaborate. Winning and losing is just part of the game. The small people care. The leaders golf together, vacation together, etc. They collaborate in the management of empire. No one actually cares who wins and loses. If they cared, they would behave differently.
What youāre talking about is exemplified by Bush v Gore, when the Supreme Court decided the election it was Gore that happily conceded because he and Bush were just having a friendly competition. That was before the empire began its decline, what used to be collaboration between friendly rivals is turning into infighting. The partisanship we see is actually a side effect of deeper troubles.
This is correct, barring revolution.
You are incorrect. Bidenās team, under the direction of the Democrat party, have taken away your lever because they donāt want to win. The Democrats have said this, publicly. They said back in 2016 that they would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie. The Democrat party is happy to lose, always.
To say that they donāt want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but thatās not what we see. With Hillary, they didnāt conspire to make Hillary lose. They really did want her to win! They didnāt want Bernie to win because he wasnāt a Democrat. Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party, they didnāt want that. Thatās just lose/lose for them.
If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I wonāt give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.
Itās EXACTLY what we see. 40 years of campaigning on Roe v Wade as law, zero moves to make it happen. Spending their own fundraising on Republican opponents. Espousing positions that people want but never actually following through. Compromising before negotiating. Democrats make their money from Wall St, just like Republicans do, so they have to lie about wanting to win for progressives to vote for them, but they donāt actually want to win because then theyāll be exposed. When they have a majority, itās always a small majority and thereās always one to three Democrats that adopt the āspoilerā role, either switching sides, going independent, pretending to be a Blue Dog, or lying about the will of their own constituents being opposed to Democrat positions.
They conspired to lose the election. Not to make Hillary lose, but to choose the person who polled terribly, to choose the positions that wouldnāt mobilize the voters, etc.
No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely ahistorical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. Heās very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, heās useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.
No it wouldnāt have. Because general voters donāt elect party leadership, and the president doesnāt suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.
They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide. The country is built on genocide - non-stop genocide. Just go look up how many people the USA killed in each military action after WW2. Then go look at how many indigenous people they killed here. Then try to find the numbers for how many slaves they killed. Just for comparison, the very tiny island of Haiti was replacing around 50,000 slaves (because they were being worked to death) annually. During the Haitian revolt, hundreds were gassed by the French in the bottom of slave ships. And thatās just the KILLING. Then youāve got the erasure of language, child separation policies, which you know about now but literally follow an unbroken line all the back to before the founding of the country, because separating kids from their parents is how you kill an entire social culture, forced sterilization of 1/3 of Puerto Rico and of indigenous and Black people was happening through the 1970s. Both parties are aware. They participated. They think itās fine. They think itās correct. They fucking paid the slave owners for property losses but refuse to pay reparations to those enslaved or their descendants.
The USA is a genocidal settler colony that asserted its own leadership, live a cancer that broke free from its host and now lives independently. All the politicians are engaged, fully or partially, in ongoing centuries of genocide.
This is like accusing an Welshman of being a Scotsman. He literally isnāt a Democrat. Thatās his whole brand and his function to the party.
He is a major part of the party and certainly a useful idiot, but because he literally isnāt a Democrat isnāt allowed to be an important part of the party. His job is to be a sheepdog and shepherd us back into the polls for Democrats, he isnāt supposed to actually lead the party.
Alsoā¦ are you implying they treated Hillary badly and caused her to lose on purpose? Thatās a pretty wild accusation lol
Thatās a contradiction. If the party was fine ideologically then Bernie couldnāt hurt donors because that runs counter to their ideology.
Bernie would certainly hurt their donors, and that itself would fundamentally change the party because it would change who the financial backers of the party are - but youāre also ignoring how Trump very clearly changed the Republican party (yes, I know Republicans were always fascists, but they were cryptofascists before they stopped hiding behind dogwhistles). The very demographic base of the party changed because of who the president was, and now those āāārespectableāāā Republicans that Democrats love so much are on the outside of the partyās base. Bernie, if he had been allowed to win, would have changed the voter base and the financial base. Theyād rather lose than have that.
This is all a ridiculous hypothetical, of course, because Democrats would rather lose than let Bernie win. But thatās it! They didnāt want Hillary to lose, they really wanted her to win - but they wanted her to win with her unpopular platform that caused them to lose. Her platform wasnāt intended to lose, though, and they didnāt give her an unpopular platform to make her lose. Youāre really putting the cart before the horse here.
It certainly looks that way, but that doesnāt mean they want to lose for its own sake. Iām not sure what youāre even arguing here.
It sounds like youāre saying that Biden supports the Zionistās genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they donāt want to be in power anymore.
No no, Iām saying the genocide is more important than winning. And if he has to lose in order for the genocide to continue under Trump, then they want to lose.
I see what youāre saying now, but I think they want to win and also continue supporting genocide at the same time. Theyāre actually ideologues that really believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They donāt actually want to lose and will be very surprised when it happens.
In order for them to actually be planning to lose it would require a lot of people to secretly agree to lose. I donāt think thatās happening. I think those people are delusionally confident and actually really believe theyāre going to win. Maybe Iām underestimating their intelligence lol
Nah, youāre too credulous. The parties collaborate. Winning and losing is just part of the game. The small people care. The leaders golf together, vacation together, etc. They collaborate in the management of empire. No one actually cares who wins and loses. If they cared, they would behave differently.
What youāre talking about is exemplified by Bush v Gore, when the Supreme Court decided the election it was Gore that happily conceded because he and Bush were just having a friendly competition. That was before the empire began its decline, what used to be collaboration between friendly rivals is turning into infighting. The partisanship we see is actually a side effect of deeper troubles.
Fundamentally disagree. The political theater is not showing a deep divide between agents. It is reflecting the deep divide between voters.