kurtster wrote:
Kurtster, this is what I find really surprising about you. We are facing a million pressing issues for the future of this planet and that of our children and these two issues are all you hitch your wagon to?
I can only conclude that you don't really have anything to worry about.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Which is why I have hooked up with Trump and his incarnation of the repub party.  My primary concerns are border security and recognition of the difference between legal and illegal immigration along with being against the sexual mutilation of children.  Only people who will recognize or even address those issues as valid.  In order to get that I have to put up with the other stuff that comes with it.

 Steely_D wrote: 
Curious what he said and how do you know since you obviously did not watch his CPAC speech or you never would have posted your little ditty on Trump not knowing his wife's name.

 Steely_D wrote:
Parties lose elections sometimes. If that's the only power you have (and if losing elections is the only thing those on power fear) then you can use that leverage to affect change.

Not in this election but in the next. And if Palestine is your main concern what difference does it make if it's Trump or Biden is pandering to the "Israel can do no wrong" crowd? Hold your party hostage to your issue and they either come around (or at least pretend to) or they cut you loose and you have to try and find a political home where you're welcome. They were co-opted into this coalition and they may have to renegotiate the terms of their involvement again.

Apparently, 66% of eligible voters voted in 2020. 46% in 2022.

 kurtster wrote:

And Trump said stupid stuff about black people at the CPAC.

All of this boils down to who understands how the government works,
how our international relations work,
how our economy (all of it) works, and
what all Americans need.

The majority of Americans, last time this question was asked, picked the guy who’s currently President.
And the time before that, picked the woman who didn’t get put into office.
And the time before that, asked the previous President to keep on keeping on.
And the time before that, picked the Illinois state senator who was a civil rights lawyer.

That pretty much covers the last fifteen years or so. Pretty obviously, through voting, the people have spoken up for political knowledge, personal integrity, and competence. Let’s compare Biden and Trump on that, and may the best man win a second consecutive term.

 R_P wrote: 
Biden said. "I'll tell you, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or for Trump, then you ain't black."

 Steely_D wrote:
Dumb and myopic.

 R_P wrote:
Cute and meaningless.
Just post another cartoon instead.

 Steely_D wrote:
Don't excuse the candidates from their responsibility.

 R_P wrote:

Or: "Whose fault is it if Trump becomes President again?

As Nader noted when it was argued that he "drained" votes and caused Bush to win (anyone remember that?): "Didn’t more than 300,000 registered Democratic voters in Florida who voted for George W. Bush drain votes away from Mr. Gore?" 
That is - if Trump becomes President again, it's really the fault of the people who didn't vote for Biden. 

Don't excuse the voters from their responsibility.

Old news but even more relevant given today's circumstances.
.
Robert Gates seems to double down on claim that Biden's been wrong on top foreign policy issues for decades.

.
This is what everyone who voted for Biden knowingly voted for.  Chaos in the world.

 haresfur wrote:

I wouldn't do it publicly, but I would certainly delay any inbound equipment, or just send a big empty container with a note inside saying "Yo Benny, give me a call, we need to chat - Biden". We have all the leverage we need with them, we've used it before. I don't understand the reluctance to use it now.

You heard the dotard (again, on some comedy show). He's a rabid Zionist.

Also, really doing "something" would be a bad election tactic. The loony right would have him for lunch.

So it's a rock and a hard place of his own making.

 islander wrote:
I very much doubt that. That's why it would be better imo not to threaten it but just "temporarily" suspend the aid. Never back anyone into a corner where taking a way out would be a major defeat.

 haresfur wrote:

The US may officially have limited sway, but if we said "stop indiscriminate bombing or we stop aid and military shipments" it would end this week.  Linking it to Ukraine was stupid. The US position should be 2 states or 0 states, let us know if we should remove our diplomats.

 rgio wrote:

As I pointed out previously, The US only has limited sway over Israeli policy and Biden kind of backed himself into a corner linking aid to Israel with aid to Ukraine, but it was a no-win situation and he did it before the Israeli military action in Gaza began. It is obvious that Netanyahu doesn't give a fuck what the US wants, nor does Hamas. Diplomacy is weird stuff and unfortunately includes a lot of code words and signals. I think it would be appropriate at this point if the US abstained on a UN resolution calling for a cease fire. I mean the resolutions are just blowing smoke anyway.

At this point, If I were him, I'd keep the aid in the budget but suspend any delivery to backup US support for a two state solution. I mean, that wouldn't make anyone happy but no one is happy now. Probably the most important thing would be to sit down with the left wing of the party and try to get some backing given the whole shit-show and the even worse shit-show if Trump is elected.

Of course it would help if the republicans didn't keep trying to burn the country and the world down and started to help govern.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Now, since it's a real concern amongst many people, it's snowballed into something the media disseminates. That doesn't require media manipulation. It's in their nature to spread something like this around - and people with whom it resonates likewise make sure to keep it alive. 
And there's no conspiracy about people's beliefs and understandings about what's going down there. I, too, look at the situation there and have my thoughts about how wrong it is. I'm surprised when people don't see it that way. That would be consensus, not conspiracy.

But the response to that is to take votes away from Biden in a presidential election when the result could be a Trump presidency?... What kind of strategy for positive change is that? Who came up with that bright idea?
—
Interesting seeing two different takes on the topic below: 1) it has legs and 2) the amount of undecided vote change is insignificant.

 steeler wrote:

Which is why it has legitimacy. I never said it wasn't a real issue that resonated, and those who are responding to it by saying, "I won't vote for Biden" of course haven't thought past what that means.