Man, it’s not about liking or not liking Biden. It’s about understanding what realistic paths are ahead. Would it be great if we had someone other than Biden? Yes. Would any other US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis? No.
Just stop obsessing over that choice. Criticism of Biden isn’t a way to demotivate voter turnout, it’s a way of activating political engagement outside of electoral politics.
It’s a shit choice and everyone knows it - so why should we be beating each other over the head with it when there are better ways to engage with the issues? Going around the internet whipping leftists into line to support the least-fascist option is a waste of everyone’s time, and it has the side-effect of minimizing leftist stances. That there aren’t alternative candidates that would handle the Israeli occupation differently shouldn’t dissuade us from being loud about critiquing his handling of it.
Sure, you have fun with the idea that engaging in a circle-jerk about how Biden is literally a genocidaire definitely doesn’t affect the electoral realities on the ground, and that definitely numerous leftists on here aren’t already loudly declaring that now they’ll NEVER vote for GENOCIDE JOE. Obviously pretending that this isn’t a moderation of previous US support for Israel and that non-support of Israel is a non-starter due to over 70% of the voting population being in favor of further support to Israel definitely won’t affect turnout.
I don’t know if you’ll be wringing your hands comfortably in front of your television set in a second Trump presidency or if you’ll be in the camps with the rest of us, but I doubt you’ll have any self-reflection on this stance in either case.
I get that you’re frustrated, possibly fearful, of Biden’s low approval and the risk of a Trump presidency. There are plenty of ways for Biden to win more progressives over, he just has to decide that preventing a trump presidency is more important than maintaining the status quo.
The only person responsible for that possibility is him.
I get that you’re frustrated, possibly fearful, of Biden’s low approval and the risk of a Trump presidency. There are plenty of ways for Biden to win more progressives over, he just has to decide that preventing a trump presidency is more important than maintaining the status quo.
Every act of winning progressives over also has a cost of alienating non-progressives which, despite the repeated claims of some commentators, are not actually anywhere close to a majority of the Democratic Party, much less the country as a whole. The idea that all Biden has to do to win the election is become super-progressive ignores that the country itself is not super-fucking progressive. Would I love it if it was? Sure. But we work with reality how it is, not how we fucking wish it to be.
First poll I found says 65% rather than over 70%, but the overall point remains
That poll was conducted back in October. A hell of a lot has changed since then, hasn’t it?
Every act of winning progressives over also has a cost of alienating non-progressives which, despite the repeated claims of some commentators, are not actually anywhere close to a majority of the Democratic Party, much less the country as a whole. The idea that all Biden has to do to win the election is become super-progressive ignores that the country itself is not super-fucking progressive. Would I love it if it was? Sure. But we work with reality how it is, not how we fucking wish it to be.
It isn’t the responsibility of progressives to build a winning coalition for Biden, that’s his job. Whining about how progressives dislike him and may not vote for him isn’t going to change their minds, if anything it will entrench their view that the Democratic party stands against them.
The far-right and far-left resurgence hasn’t happened in a vacuum, it happened because the last 50 years of austerity has left the majority of American’s behind. If you’re looking to the last 50 years of politics as the basis to assert ‘progressive candidates can’t win’, then you’re ignoring the political landscape as it exists right now.
That poll was conducted back in October. A hell of a lot has changed since then, hasn’t it?
… no?
It isn’t the responsibility of progressives to build a winning coalition for Biden, that’s his job.
Thanks for ignoring the entire point which is that further moves towards progressives further endanger Biden, the only viable current candidate against Trump. But hey, I’m sure your purity politics will be great comfort when LGBT people are being herded into camps, and you can say, “Well, I didn’t want to vote for GENOCIDE JOE!”
Lol, well… Yes? Do you really not think public sentiment has shifted since the October attack? The hospital bombings? The refugee bombings? The Palestinian death tolls? I guess you’re free to disagree, but I think i’d trust my more recent poll over the one that happened immediately following the 10/6 attack and before the Israeli response.
I’m sure your purity politics will be great comfort when LGBT people are being herded into camps, and you can say, “Well, I didn’t want to vote for GENOCIDE JOE!”
On the contrary, i’ll be railing against moderates like you who insisted on another milquetoast neoliberal dinosaur as the ONLY REALISTIC CANDIDATE when shit goes down, especially since I’ll have begrudgingly voted for him regardless after screaming for a more effective candidate for the last 16 years.
Honestly, this has the same vibe as Elon’s “Earth will know twitter was killed by woke advertisers pulling support”. Nah bud, Biden will lose because he is the wrong fucking candidate. But hey, at least you can blame progressives for their light criticisms of Biden, amiright?
Lol, well… Yes? Do you really not think public sentiment has shifted since the October attack? The hospital bombings? The refugee bombings? The Palestinian death tolls? I guess you’re free to disagree, but I think i’d trust my more recent poll over the one that happened immediately following the 10/6 attack and before the Israeli response.
Your more recent poll is about approval of Biden’s response, not whether aid to Israel is acceptable, not enough, or too much. You do realize that right-wingers are going to disapprove of Biden’s-oh, why do I bother? You’ll read whatever you want into it.
But I suppose I shouldn’t expect anything more from someone who thinks that purity politics and magical thinking is preferable to not seeing minorities in camps. But hey, at least you’ll keep claiming that it was actually the neoliberals’ fault for… not convincing the overwhelming majority of America to suddenly become leftists that are acceptable to your standards.
calling me delusional is a personal attack. it’s inappropriate in this community. if you have a rebuttal to I have to say you can articulate it in the context of the validity of ideas.
If someone says that switching to the gold standard is viable, that’s delusional, and should be called out as such.
If someone says that an independent without an independent support base and no established political experience who has jumped several parties already has a serious chance at the presidency, that’s delusional, and should be called out as such.
this is just a defense of your personal attack, which is still inappropriate. if you can’t engage with the material, use the vote buttons and move along.
… because begging the question is a form of circular logic rather than an assertion that a contrary position would be disqualifying to one’s chances, realistically speaking?
Buddy, you’ve assumed ‘a lack of contrary views’ in your definition of ‘realistic candidate’ in the assertion ‘no other realistic candidate has a contrary view’. That is the very definition of circular.
Doesn’t matter if you think it’s a true statement regardless, it doesn’t make it any less circular.
Just gonna chime in late to say that I don’t think it’s circular. They did not define a “realistic candidate” as necessarily someone without a contrary view, just that it is a trait shared by all “realistic candidates” that are currently running. At no point did they say it was a necessary trait of all “realistic candidates.”
It’s kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. Just because all of the current “realistic candidates” share that one opinion, it does not logically follow that they need to share the opinion in order to be a “realistic candidate.”
Circular logic is using facts of a presumed conclusion to support the conclusion (for example “if I’m right then X is true and because of X I’m right” without actually addressing the argument for/against X).
Your ridiculous nonsense is a strawman argument where you’re pretending your opponent will use non sequiturs, instead of actually addressing their real argument, and likewise you’re assuming your opponent will be wrong before they have presented the full argument (and furthermore you have made zero attempt at proving otherwise by not presenting any other candidate with better policies)
“two things are correlated” is simply not the definition of circular.
Man, it’s not about liking or not liking Biden. It’s about understanding what realistic paths are ahead. Would it be great if we had someone other than Biden? Yes. Would any other US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis? No.
Just stop obsessing over that choice. Criticism of Biden isn’t a way to demotivate voter turnout, it’s a way of activating political engagement outside of electoral politics.
It’s a shit choice and everyone knows it - so why should we be beating each other over the head with it when there are better ways to engage with the issues? Going around the internet whipping leftists into line to support the least-fascist option is a waste of everyone’s time, and it has the side-effect of minimizing leftist stances. That there aren’t alternative candidates that would handle the Israeli occupation differently shouldn’t dissuade us from being loud about critiquing his handling of it.
Sure, you have fun with the idea that engaging in a circle-jerk about how Biden is literally a genocidaire definitely doesn’t affect the electoral realities on the ground, and that definitely numerous leftists on here aren’t already loudly declaring that now they’ll NEVER vote for GENOCIDE JOE. Obviously pretending that this isn’t a moderation of previous US support for Israel and that non-support of Israel is a non-starter due to over 70% of the voting population being in favor of further support to Israel definitely won’t affect turnout.
I don’t know if you’ll be wringing your hands comfortably in front of your television set in a second Trump presidency or if you’ll be in the camps with the rest of us, but I doubt you’ll have any self-reflection on this stance in either case.
Where are you getting this figure, exactly? Last I heard, only 33% of registered voters approve of Biden’s response to this issue.
I get that you’re frustrated, possibly fearful, of Biden’s low approval and the risk of a Trump presidency. There are plenty of ways for Biden to win more progressives over, he just has to decide that preventing a trump presidency is more important than maintaining the status quo.
The only person responsible for that possibility is him.
50% of the population disapproves of Biden’s response to any issue due to him being Biden. First poll I found says 65% rather than over 70%, but the overall point remains
Every act of winning progressives over also has a cost of alienating non-progressives which, despite the repeated claims of some commentators, are not actually anywhere close to a majority of the Democratic Party, much less the country as a whole. The idea that all Biden has to do to win the election is become super-progressive ignores that the country itself is not super-fucking progressive. Would I love it if it was? Sure. But we work with reality how it is, not how we fucking wish it to be.
That poll was conducted back in October. A hell of a lot has changed since then, hasn’t it?
It isn’t the responsibility of progressives to build a winning coalition for Biden, that’s his job. Whining about how progressives dislike him and may not vote for him isn’t going to change their minds, if anything it will entrench their view that the Democratic party stands against them.
The far-right and far-left resurgence hasn’t happened in a vacuum, it happened because the last 50 years of austerity has left the majority of American’s behind. If you’re looking to the last 50 years of politics as the basis to assert ‘progressive candidates can’t win’, then you’re ignoring the political landscape as it exists right now.
… no?
Thanks for ignoring the entire point which is that further moves towards progressives further endanger Biden, the only viable current candidate against Trump. But hey, I’m sure your purity politics will be great comfort when LGBT people are being herded into camps, and you can say, “Well, I didn’t want to vote for GENOCIDE JOE!”
Lol, well… Yes? Do you really not think public sentiment has shifted since the October attack? The hospital bombings? The refugee bombings? The Palestinian death tolls? I guess you’re free to disagree, but I think i’d trust my more recent poll over the one that happened immediately following the 10/6 attack and before the Israeli response.
On the contrary, i’ll be railing against moderates like you who insisted on another milquetoast neoliberal dinosaur as the ONLY REALISTIC CANDIDATE when shit goes down, especially since I’ll have begrudgingly voted for him regardless after screaming for a more effective candidate for the last 16 years.
Honestly, this has the same vibe as Elon’s “Earth will know twitter was killed by woke advertisers pulling support”. Nah bud, Biden will lose because he is the wrong fucking candidate. But hey, at least you can blame progressives for their light criticisms of Biden, amiright?
Your more recent poll is about approval of Biden’s response, not whether aid to Israel is acceptable, not enough, or too much. You do realize that right-wingers are going to disapprove of Biden’s-oh, why do I bother? You’ll read whatever you want into it.
But I suppose I shouldn’t expect anything more from someone who thinks that purity politics and magical thinking is preferable to not seeing minorities in camps. But hey, at least you’ll keep claiming that it was actually the neoliberals’ fault for… not convincing the overwhelming majority of America to suddenly become leftists that are acceptable to your standards.
cornel west has been outspoken about having a different political stance on this.
Would any other realistic US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis?
Cornel west
Thinking that Cornel West is a serious candidate or has anything vaguely resembling a chance at the presidency is nothing short of delusional.
calling me delusional is a personal attack. it’s inappropriate in this community. if you have a rebuttal to I have to say you can articulate it in the context of the validity of ideas.
If someone says that switching to the gold standard is viable, that’s delusional, and should be called out as such.
If someone says that an independent without an independent support base and no established political experience who has jumped several parties already has a serious chance at the presidency, that’s delusional, and should be called out as such.
Being offended doesn’t change that.
this is just a defense of your personal attack, which is still inappropriate. if you can’t engage with the material, use the vote buttons and move along.
You have fun playing tone police over an objection to a candidate not having a realistic chance.
Tell me how this isn’t begging the question.
… because begging the question is a form of circular logic rather than an assertion that a contrary position would be disqualifying to one’s chances, realistically speaking?
… do you know what begging the question is?
“No other realistic candidate has a contrary view on this issue” -> “Their contrary views disqualify them as a realistic candidate”
Seems pretty circular to me.
Strawman, and that is in fact not what circular logic is.
That’s not circular logic, and thinking it is reflects a serious lack of understanding of what circular logic is supposed to describe and criticize.
Buddy, you’ve assumed ‘a lack of contrary views’ in your definition of ‘realistic candidate’ in the assertion ‘no other realistic candidate has a contrary view’. That is the very definition of circular.
Doesn’t matter if you think it’s a true statement regardless, it doesn’t make it any less circular.
Just gonna chime in late to say that I don’t think it’s circular. They did not define a “realistic candidate” as necessarily someone without a contrary view, just that it is a trait shared by all “realistic candidates” that are currently running. At no point did they say it was a necessary trait of all “realistic candidates.”
It’s kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. Just because all of the current “realistic candidates” share that one opinion, it does not logically follow that they need to share the opinion in order to be a “realistic candidate.”
No realistic candidate has contrary views.
Therefore
There are no realistic candidates with contrary views.
Is that really too complex for you to understand? Jesus Christ.
Go take a logics class you irate troll.
Circular logic is using facts of a presumed conclusion to support the conclusion (for example “if I’m right then X is true and because of X I’m right” without actually addressing the argument for/against X).
Your ridiculous nonsense is a strawman argument where you’re pretending your opponent will use non sequiturs, instead of actually addressing their real argument, and likewise you’re assuming your opponent will be wrong before they have presented the full argument (and furthermore you have made zero attempt at proving otherwise by not presenting any other candidate with better policies)
“two things are correlated” is simply not the definition of circular.