You're viewing a single thread.
I love watching this strawman over and over.
Of course Biden is better than Trump. He should still stop supporting genocide.
As far as I know, the Oval Office doesn't have start/stop genocide button, or control inflation lever for that matter.
If it's not going to be Biden, then it will be someone else. Either a Republican or a Democrat.
Even someone who earlier looked promising, eg Fetterman is a staunch Israel supporter.
Because the problem is systematic. You can't just uproot the US-Israel nexus that's deeply entrenched in the US politics.
the Oval Office doesn't have start/stop genocide button
True, but it DOES have the option to stop supplying bombs that they know for a fact are being used to commit that genocide.
Your "either they can push a magic button or they're doing all they can" dichotomy isn't clever. It shows that you're being either disingenuous, willfully ignorant or just extremely obtuse.
Because the problem is systematic
Yes, Israel is systematically wiping out the population of Gaza and the Biden White House is using the levers of the system to help them do it. That's not an argument for not telling them to stop.
You can't just uproot the US-Israel nexus that's deeply entrenched in the US politics
You can, in fact. It worked with Apartheid South Africa, which the US also kept supporting way beyond the point that most other countries stopped, and it'll work with THIS apartheid regime too.
It has a stop paying for genocide button.
It has a stop vetoing UN resolutions button.
It has an impose sanctions button and a freeze assets button.
It has a pull their warships out button.
It has dozens of make life really uncomfortable for Israel if it doesn't fucking stop committing genocide buttons.
But at the very least it could stop actively helping them commit genocide.
They did use the stop vetoing resolutions button. Not much but it's not nothing.
Sending their warships would mean Israel would try calling their bluff and force USA to commit an act of war to stop them, which would cause absolutely chaos in the region. They probably should start with sanctions though.
Biden's biggest problem here is he's so focused on backrooms negotiations, that he's not using some of the options that could increase public pressure, and all other people see is old treaties continuing with very slow changes and seeing the continued actions of the other party who doesn't really want to negotiate.
I mean withdraw their ships already in the area, replace that layer of defense with, oh I dunno, thoughts and prayers maybe.
You're one the types that demand we leave Iraq and then gets upset when we have to face the consequences of doing it.
They also claimed that the resolution is non-binding, which is contrary to stated international law.
And what does that do?
Gives ammo to GOP and their allies to target Biden and attract fence-sitters and unaware.
These things don't happen in a vacuum.
Biden isn't rubbing his hands with glee and laughing maniacally.
Do you honestly think these options weren't considered over the last six months?
And what does that do?
Gives ammo to GOP and their allies to target Biden and attract fence-sitters and unaware.
On the contrary. The majority of the population doesn't approve of supporting genocide, especially Democrats and prospective Dem voters further left.
The status quo of supporting the genocide isn't winning over anyone who would vote Republican if they stopped. It's alienating millions of crucial voters who won't vote at all if they DON'T stop.
We can easily agree that not voting is a bad idea that is likely to contribute to the risk of mango Mussolini winning.
Given that, we should be able to also agree that it's a bad idea to knowingly keep doing something morally and ethically reprehensible that is causing people to do just that.
And what does that do?
Makes it harder for Netanyahu to continue committing genocide.
Gives ammo to GOP and their allies to target Biden and attract fence-sitters and unaware.
We shouldn't keep supporting genocide just because you're scared of what the GOP might do. That's a shitty reason for anything, and it's disgusting cowardice in this context.
What happens when your high morals cost American lives here at home? You'll learn a lot about cowardice when living under authoritarian rule.
In before, "just have a bloody war."
What happens when your high morals cost American lives here at home?
I did not suggest voting for Trump or not voting for Biden.
I said that Biden should stop supporting genocide.
Is your position also that we need to endlessly discuss bidens position on Isreal during an election year? Or are there other issues that we need to address as americans?
Is your position also that we need to endlessly discuss bidens position on Isreal during an election year?
Such discussion becomes inevitable as long as he continues to support genocide. It's one of the reasons he should stop. Thank you for letting me know that you have more of a problem with people talking about genocide than you do the genocide itself.
I have a problem with people obscuring trumps demented presidential run with shit we already knew about Biden in 2020. I voted in 2020s primary and it wasn't for conservative lite. Elections have consequences and if you can't live with those consequences what the fuck are you doing?
Or are there other issues that we need to address as americans?
We could also talk about how we still don't have Medicare for All yet if you'd want.
The fact that he's supporting genocide with our tax dollars seems very relevant though. Trump and Bush never even did that
Gives ammo to GOP and their allies to target Biden and attract fence-sitters and unaware.
Should we also not support healthcare, trans rights, women's rights, work reform , tax reform, climate change laws and all the other things they get angry at? The road to fascism is paved with political convenience.
I'm worried that'll be their next strategy considering their pivot strong right on immigration
Most of those things are a part of the democrats platform. Isreal is categorically different.
“Oh, I’m so sorry, I’d love to stop the genocide, but think of the optics! It would be soooooooo optically bad if we stopped the genocide! It could make the fence sitters vote for trump! We all know the fence sitters love genocide!”
As far as I know, the Oval Office doesn’t have start/stop genocide button
I didn't say "stop genocide". I said "stop supporting genocide."
That’s a distinction that shows you understand nuance. Unfortunately your position does not suggest the same.
My position being that Biden should stop supporting genocide.
As far as I know, the Oval Office doesn’t have start/stop genocide button, or control inflation lever for that matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war
They indeed have the stop button but it's not the one they are pressing.
Not sure where you got the implication from that he shouldn't stop supporting genocide?
Right here on lemmy. Try saying that Biden should stop supporting genocide here on lemmy a few times. You'll get plenty of people acting like you're both-sidesing for Trump.
Only if you add in a splash of "so I'm not voting for him".
No one is shouting down people for just saying Biden should stop supporting genocide.
If you say "biden should stop supporting genocide" then you'll get "but the other guy supports genocide even harder" to shut down any discussion. If you point out that it's unacceptable that the only two options are genocide supporters, that's definitely when you get the "you're both sidesing!!" talking point in another attempt to shut down discussion.
No you won't.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that this is not true
I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is.
Wow, that was easy!
Someone posts news about Biden walking back on his sanctions on settlers, and this comment appears. Edit, doesn't work for me, maybe this link to my reply will
Another perfect example and another
Someone makes a meme about Biden jeopardizing his chances and gets this response.
None of these people said they would vote trump. If you look out for it you will see this quite often. Unfortunately a couple of recent threads I was involved in with other examples have since been deleted.
I can't read some of those without creating an account, so I'll take your word for it.
But from the ones I can see, I don't see anyone acting like someone who claimed Biden should stop supporting genocide is both-sidesing for Trump.
The one that comes closest was downvoted and removed, so it's obviously not a popular thing to do.
Someone in one example is complaining that the DNC ignores progressives, not saying they will vote for Trump. The response containing this has 10 net upvotes:
It seems you're suggesting that the fallout from another Trump presidency will lead to better long term results than a second Biden presidency?
What happens to Ukraine after you stick it to the man and support Trump?
Honestly it will continue in future and now you will notice it.
He already noticed it and is gaslighting.
Thank you for letting me know that I must be lying about my lived experience.
Go ahead, share some examples then. Back yourself up. Should be simple if it's so common.
You get one. I suspect you're arguing in bad faith and I'm not going to waste more time on something like that.
https://lemmy.world/comment/8972976
Particularly sailingbythelee's response. When you try to say this isn't sufficient, it will confirm that you were arguing in bad faith the entire time.
You could not have found a better example.
Original position of the goalposts:
No one is shouting down people for just saying Biden should stop supporting genocide.
Now all of a sudden the downvotes are the most important part
Oh the commenter who's being downvoted? Yeah, it's obviously not a prevalent or popular response. At best you're complaining about trolls on the internet -- that's always going to exist.
Oh, and before I forget, if you say that's not what you're doing, then it will confirm you were arguing in bad faith the entire time.
That's for teaching me that cool trick with that disclaimer -- what a neat way to discredit people.
Wrong thread
What is the strawman in this meme? When you talk to republicans they will point out the flaws of a democrat and act like that is equivalent to whatever their republican counterparts are doing. This is not a strawman.
When you talk to republicans they will point out the flaws of a democrat and act like that is equivalent to whatever their republican counterparts are doing
A "flaw"? Really? Supporting genocide is more than a "flaw".
But the problem arises when the sort of centrist who would downplay genocide by calling it a "flaw" decides that anyone who says that Biden should stop supporting genocide must be a republican both-sidesing. Or is a Russian. Or chinese, or a bot or a tankie or a trumpist or a nazi or a child.
Which are all things I have been called because I dared to say that Biden should not be supporting genocide.
I’m not disagreeing on the genocide comment. But you said it was a strawman argument. Nothing you’ve said equates to a strawman argument. That’s all I’m saying.
This meme is targeting leftists, not republicans.
Which strawman? I’m relying on:
strawman: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
I don’t think op knows what a strawman argument is.
If he doesn’t change his position by Election Day, will that prevent you from voting for him?
Wouldn't that be single-issue voting that would ultimately favor the Orange Menace?
I don't understand why this keeps resurfacing on Lemmy like there's a choice. Like, what's the point of asking people this?
The point is to avoid addressing the reasonable concern. If you say you would not vote for Biden then the conversation becomes about your poor tactics rather than the current president aiding a genocide.
Or to find out how important it is that Biden change course if he wants to win.
Fair enough. Honestly at this point it's a humanitarian issue, not an electoral one.
In terms of the election, both candidates are bad for Gaza (Trump more so) and Trump is also bad on basically every other issue unless you're a MAGA republican, rich or a fascist. Obviously any sane person must vote for Biden anyway.
In humanitarian terms, Biden's response has been a total and utter disaster and anybody who values all human life equally should be disgusted with him. He has possibly the most leverage to change the situation of anybody outside Israel, so the question is, what type of person do you want to be? Do you want to be the person who stays all chummy with the one committing the vast majority of the atrocities and tries to shield him from criticism, or do you want to be the person who calls out injustice when he sees it? Because I am certain that he sees it.
For the election I do think he should be concerned that not all voters will be so pragmatic. But much more importantly he should do the right thing for the 2 million plus people that are currently suffering collective punishment because of the actions of a small minority of them. This isn't about getting elected, it's about respect for human life.
You said it much better than I could.
To convince people to not vote or vote third party, so that fascism can get stronger. It will totally work out this time, guys, promise.
Please vote. Vote third party for president if that’s your conscience.
But also make sure to vote for those what will allow ranked-choice, proportional representation, etc. vote against wackos in your community. Vote for social programs that actually reduce crime and increase safely instead of voting for higher police budgets. Vote for consumer protection. Vote for education and other high return on tax dollar investments.
Accelerationism is a hell of a drug.
I thought you guys would "stop after the primary season." I wonder if anyone called that out as bullshit.
Stop what?
Anybody who doesn't vote for Biden because of Israel deserves Trump.
Problem is there will be a MAJORITY of us who voted for Biden.
What these assholes don't understand is we are fighting over margins.
I get one vote in the presidential election and when you look at my state, it doesn't fucking matter.
It's down ballot that matters and people tend to vote down ballot of the president elect they support.
So anyone you discourage from voting Biden in a swing state is more like "-200" votes. Where I could say I'm going to piss on my ballot and set it on fire and it does not matter. After it drys, probably. Or my piss will be alcohol because how of wasted I will be.
All this to say, what ever the fuck your problem with Biden is, it doesn't matter. We need to win the house and senate too and it's a uphill battle all. the. fucking. way.
It seems like encouraging people to vote would be more effective than vote-shaming. Am I wrong? Does vote-shaming increase turnout?
Forgive me bud, we're here on a politics message board. We are all entrenched. This is the show to display many different view points and fuck knows where it goes from there. Maybe someone takes a liking to one and uses it but end of the day we are here venting frustrations and kicking piss at each other.