this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
74 points (79.4% liked)

politics

18047 readers
20 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
74
Rashida Tlaib endorses campaign to vote against Joe Biden in the Michigan Democratic primary (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 4 months ago by CollisionResistance@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

She doesn’t say anything about the general election, but knowing that she’s a smart and pragmatic politician I would hope that she’ll still rally for Biden in the general. Her effort is to try to get Biden to change his messed up policy on Gaza, which is an admirable goal that I fully agree with. But if he doesn’t, and she still doesn’t get behind him against Trump, then this helps no one and ultimately makes everyone less safe, especially the communities she represents so well.

[–] Saxoboneless@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean if her rallying for Biden means campaigning for him, I honestly think that she particularly has every good reason not to do that. Tlaib is a Palestinian American, and Biden has openly contributed billions directly to Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza, going so far as to bypass congress to do so, all while he and nearly every other Dem continue to refuse to acknowledge that Israel's actions constitute anything "messed up," much less full-on genocide.

I cannot stress enough that if, in the face of Biden's continuing contributions to the genocide of her family's country of origin, it is an ethical impossibility for her to publically endorse him for a second term, that is completely on him, not on her.

[–] III@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

it is an ethical impossibility for her to publically endorse him for a second term

I get your point, it is a tough spot. But when you introduce that stance to reality, it quickly goes from "not supporting Biden" to "allowing Trump". Biden not being the ideal doesn't mean the alternative is better. Between the two, Trump will cause considerably more harm to her cause than Biden ever would. I am not saying Biden is the solution, just that Trump is worse for her ethical issues. That's the choice. Sucks but... that's the choice.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Biden isn't "not ideal". He's very handily hit rock bottom. I mean Trump wouldn't be better, that's for sure, but Biden has done everything under the sun in the current "war". I see everyone saying Trump would be worse, but like what did Biden leave for Trump to do? Give them weapons? Check. Lie publicly for them (remember the 40 babies)? Check. Dispatch aircraft carriers to protect them from anyone with an ounce of conscience in the region? Check. Trump would be spouting genocidal rhetoric (more than he is anyway), but that's about it.

Edit: Added a question mark.

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, you’re right.

[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 28 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Right... Because there is another real choice in this race.

The orange con-man is even friendlier to Israel and would help to escalate this tragedy.

I don't like the choices either, but the one that isn't Biden is so much worse!

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The point is "you don't have a better choice" isn't a great argument FOR something. The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates, not "he's not the other guy" lumps of wet tissue paper.

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

The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates

It's assumed that the incumbent will run unless they decide not to. Biden should've stuck to one term only, he would've gone down as a pretty good President, all things considered. That he didn't is on him, the DNC isn't going to go against a sitting President when there's no concrete reason to do so.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And they SHOULD. That's why they're weak. That's the entire problem.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What should they do, exactly?

Lay it out for me.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not let traditions like "we don't oppose the sitting president" override supporting who is actually best for the job. Elections should be cutroat even amongst the party. Not some dog and pony circus that we're given where both candidates are chosen for us and we get to play "lesser of two evils" game.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There will still be a sizable, perhaps even majority, of members who support Biden's choice to run again. What you're advocating for is a civil war in the Dem party during an election year against Donald fucking Trump.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

No, what I'm advocating is for more than a 2 party system where multiple viable candidates are brought forth and not just the same two groups controlling it all.

Crazy idea, I know. Maybe we could call it a "Parliament" or something.

You just keep arguing "LESSER OF TWO EVILS!" like that actually means something

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

I think you'll find a large number of people on here would prefer a system like score voting that allows us to choose a third person without throwing the vote away. That's something that would get the results you want. The DNC infighting during an election year will not get the results you want.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

You're talking about something that would be great to work towards. I'm talking about why the DNC didn't do the thing you wanted them to do.

What actually means something is keeping Trump out of the White House.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that’s why we should have RCV. Until then though, we’re stuck with first past the post voting and not voting for Biden is basically the same as voting for Trump. This could flip enough people in battleground states to let Trump win.

It’s stupid and she knows it but she’s doing it anyway

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And what will be next elections reason to not change the system, fight against it at all, and just "vote for the safer pick"? Change has to happen sometime or not at all. So when, pray tell, do we start caring that we're stuck in a shallow 2 party system and do something about it? When it's convientant?!?

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If there’s a risk of not having a next election then that changes the calculation

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Our elections are already a sham. We already don't have truly free elections in this closed two party system. So again, when do we make change? It'll never be convientant.

[–] splicerslicer@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

None of this changes the fact that if you wanted a better candidate you should have campaigned them a year ago, not now.

When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago, when is the next best time? Now.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Lmao "it's too late now, why are you even trying?". Your quote at the end literally contradicts yourself, by the way. The point of the quote is that yes, it should have been done then, but it's now and now is better than later. And of course later you'll have another handy excuse for why it's too hard, right?

None of this changes the fact that you're advocating the easy answers instead of the right answer and even you know it. But just like the boomers before who only looked out for themselves and what was easiest, so too will these next generations. And round and round we go.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

Now is not better than later. Just like how you should plant a tree in the spring. If you plant too early in winter, it will die.

Just doing what you want, without considering the consequences is selfish and dumb.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do you not understand what a primary is?

[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I do.

The better question is this: How does trying to make Biden lose the primary in Michigan help the people in Gaza?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

It's a pressure campaign. It shows that the voting block is large enough to matter in November.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is an extremely short sighted approach to elections.

[–] splicerslicer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The time to primary Biden was last year.

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

Nobody is actually making a primary run against him. They're using the primary vote in a state heavily connected to Gaza to show Biden there can be consequences in November if he doesn't change course.

And no they aren't going to vote for Trump. They'd likely not vote at all. And yes they know what that means but on the scale of genocide vs genocide it's not like it can get worse for them.

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

And no they aren't going to vote for Trump. They'd likely not vote at all. And yes they know what that means but on the scale of genocide vs genocide it's not like it can get worse for them.

Anybody who thinks in any situation “it can’t get worse” has absolutely no concept of history.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Once things get bad enough people stop thinking logically.

[–] gnate@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I have a feeling this is more like throwing soup at the protective cover of the Mona Lisa: nothing changes but it gets attention.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

As the next few decades roll by, and the US continues to backslide into fascism, it'll be interesting to see your line of thinking evolve into

"Well, look... John 'blue-tie' Smith isn't the strongest candidate. Sure, he's waging 4 genocides across multiple theaters, but compare him to Chris 'red-tie' Lee who wants to start 7 more genocides, and the answer of who's the better candidate is very clear. Thank God for my liberal pragmatism. Vote blue no matter who!"

The country is ratcheting further and further into fascism, and liberal 'pragmatism' is keeping people from asking real questions about how overarching political systems can be conducive to genocide. It obfuscates the real reasons behind the emergence of fascism.

But sure, keep falling for the good cop bad cop routine - I'm sure after just 4 or 5 or 20 more democratic presidents, you'll finally have the enlightened society you've been aiming for.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You don't get how fptp voting forces this kind of system do you? You are always forced into a lesser of 2 evils especially with the electoral college.

No one is "falling for anything".

Until systemic change happens this is literally all we can do.

If the electoral college doesn't get to 270 for Biden we get trump. That it. That's the end game.

You are completely clueless as shown by your simply ignorant wad of a post.the battles you're talking about to move the party left happen at the primary level and what happened last primaries???

Biden literally crushed everyone.

He's a political powerhouse as much as I dislike a lot of his policy he's moving in the right direction to repair the damage trump did. Get onbard or don't but either way get a clue

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Hmmm, seems like we had this type of division before, in 2016. I know history repeats but I didn't realize the cycle had shrunk to less than a decade.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Ehhhh. 2016, the year of an open no-incumbent primary? That is not called division, that is called primary democracy working as supposed. Primary is exactly the time, when party membership is under no obligation to show unity. That only needs to happen during the national election stage.

Also just due to winning primary one isn't as candidate free to ignore other candidate bases. Not out of any high ideals, but hard political reality. No voter is obligated to show up and voters are emotional beings. Slight them and they might stay home (which is the actual risk, instead of them voting for the other party).

It might be "self-harming", but again voters can be emotional instead of rational. One has to play to their actual psyche, instead of the idealistic perfect rational psyche one would want them to have. Atleast if one wants to win and shouldn't the aim of democratic party be win by near any means begging, promising the moon to its base, being as enthusiastic and energetic as possible for the national good of avoiding another Trump presidency.

People talk about electorates obligation to avoid another Trump presidency. What about DNCs obligation to go above and beyond to avoid another Trump presidency.

Which is easier to change? The collective psyche layout of 300 million people or one party's campaign program and political agenda? It's easier to fix the candidate/candidates program to match the electorate, rather than fix the electorate to match the candidate.

So if there is "division" among party base, it is the candidates and party programs job to move to match, cover and repair the cracks. Not out of high ideals, but since that is the one practically fast enough way to fix the issue. Base isn't going to suddenly change their psyche and emotional state just, because DNC says to do so out of national good. Again emotional beings, not robotic, rational automatons.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I know where my emotions will be a year into a trump presidency. It will take another 7 yrs after that to get back to where we are now if we're lucky.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It will take another 7 yrs after that to get back to where we are now

That seems overly optimistic. Obama couldn't undo most of the damage caused by Bush/Cheney in 8 years.

if we're lucky

If Trump wins, we are going to need a lot more than just luck on our side.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, so you should be really mad at the powerful people who are flirting with that, the same powerful people who made high level decisions that lead to the first Trump presidency, not at the voters they ignore.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 5 points 4 months ago

When people talk about voting third party in the general election, I always tell them the primary is the time to vote for who we really want - in the general election, we have to vote for the best viable candidate. When you tell them to sit on their hands in the primary, too, what do you think they'll do?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

2016 was not division. It was the huge favorite Hillary and the token Lefty Bernie getting some delegates to influence the party platform. It was not actually close. And it was closer than this primary will be because Hillary was a weaker candidate and not an incumbent.

And just to say it, Bernie wasn't the reason Hillary lost, either. He was evidence she was a weaker candidate than we thought.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Bernie would have beaten trump.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Go hog wild during the primary. Fully endorse.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

Not important. Single Congressperson wants to influence policy with an unexpected result in one state primary. She's allowed to, that's party politics.

Also party politics: He's still going to get 80%+ of the vote.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A campaign to get Michigan Democrats to vote against incumbent President Joe Biden in the state's February 27 primary has just gained a new supporter, Rep. Rashida Tlaib.Congresswoman Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, has been an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause and was censured by the House last year for her pro-Palestinian comments, including her use of the controversial phrase "from the river to the sea."

Her office didn't respond to Business Insider's February 9 questions about the campaign, but she released the endorsement just over a week later.

The news comes after the Biden White House sent officials to speak with Michigan Arab-American and Muslim leaders earlier this month.

There are concerns that dissatisfaction with Biden's foreign policy could hurt him in Michigan, which Biden won in 2020 by less than 3% and Hillary Clinton lost to Trump by less than 11,000 votes in 2016.2020 Census data shows that more than 300,000 people of Middle Eastern and North African descent live in the state, which will likely be key to the president's reelection campaign.

Muslim voters voted 64% to 35% for Biden in 2020, according to the AP.Tlaib's endorsement of the strategy is the latest roadbump for the Biden campaign, though it is unlikely to threaten his hold on the primary for the state, where he is the only candidate other than Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips.Biden's administration is supporting plans to send an additional $14 billion in aid to Israel on top of the billions of dollars the US spends every year.

"Tlaib's responded to the policy of her own party's leader by opposing efforts to give aid to Israel as a legislator and working with labor unions like the UAW who have endorsed a cease-fire.

The original article contains 487 words, the summary contains 289 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Will she accept responsibility for helping Trump win his dictatorship?

Or will she deny any of that kind of thing..

( just rhetorical: I can't imagine she'd accept responsibility for doing what she's doing )

_ /\ _

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

In the primary. This is a pressure campaign for Gaza.