Biden’s Gaza problems are deeper than just being interrupted in public
Biden’s Gaza problems are deeper than just being interrupted in public
The silence from Muslim leaders on the president’s 2024 reelection bid is speaking volumes as Biden continues to back Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza.
You're viewing part of a thread.
To say that they don’t want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but that’s not what we see
It's 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 don't actually want to win because then they'll be exposed. When they have a majority, it's always a small majority and there's always one to three Democrats that adopt the "spoiler" 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 didn’t 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 wouldn't mobilize the voters, etc.
They didn’t want Bernie to win because he wasn’t 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. He's very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he's 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 wouldn't have. Because general voters don't elect party leadership, and the president doesn't 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 won’t 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 that's just the KILLING. Then you've 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 it's fine. They think it's 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. He’s very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he’s 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 isn't a Democrat. That's 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 isn't a Democrat isn't 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 isn't supposed to actually lead the party.
Also... are you implying they treated Hillary badly and caused her to lose on purpose? That's a pretty wild accusation lol
No it wouldn’t have. Because general voters don’t elect party leadership, and the president doesn’t suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.
That's a contradiction. If the party was fine ideologically then Bernie couldn't 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 you're 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 """respectable""" Republicans that Democrats love so much are on the outside of the party's base. Bernie, if he had been allowed to win, would have changed the voter base and the financial base. They'd rather lose than have that.
This is all a ridiculous hypothetical, of course, because Democrats would rather lose than let Bernie win. But that's it! They didn't 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 wasn't intended to lose, though, and they didn't give her an unpopular platform to make her lose. You're really putting the cart before the horse here.
They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide.
It certainly looks that way, but that doesn't mean they want to lose for its own sake. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.
It sounds like you're saying that Biden supports the Zionist's genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they don't want to be in power anymore.
It sounds like you’re saying that Biden supports the Zionist’s genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they don’t want to be in power anymore.
No no, I'm 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 you're saying now, but I think they want to win and also continue supporting genocide at the same time. They're actually ideologues that really believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They don't 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 don't think that's happening. I think those people are delusionally confident and actually really believe they're going to win. Maybe I'm underestimating their intelligence lol
Nah, you're 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 you're 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.
That's certainly still true to a degree, but the way the US's political system is set up means that the True Believers of the theater bullshit are now the ones getting elected. They get elected to city, county, and state level offices as well as the federal House. It hasn't gotten to the point where the brain rot has reached the Senate (yet), but every level below that is filled with up-and-comers who really believe the partisanship is real. The old guard of the empire is all in their 80s and dying off, these younger politicians are completely disconnected from realpolitik because they grew up in the neoliberal End of History. That's why we have shit like Texas having a showdown with the feds over the border lol
Transmission of empire happens in universities, in big business, and in the halls of power. The new guard has gone through that process just like their predecessors. That their behavior is more erratic, again, speaks to the psychology of the voters more than the psychology of the officials.
Their predecessors cut their teeth on the Cold War, this new cohort did so on the War on Terror. Rather than having experience competing with a world power, their only experience is in colonial management. It's like how the Zionist army only has experience managing the occupation and has no experience in actual warfare. They're ideologically similar, but their actual professional experiences are far different. Psychology is irrelevant imo
Even during the cold war the USA lost constantly. I don't think it's incompetence. I think guerilla warfare is simply superior. It's not like the USA was effect during the cold war. The USSR was famous for it's ability to hunt Western spies far more effectively than the reverse. The USSR defeated the most powerful Western army ever fielded while they were still trying to modernize their agriculture to stop the centuries-long cycle of famine. The USSR failed not because of the West but because of their own failures to manage reaction and revision in the party.
The cold war was colonial management. So I don't see why you think managing empire back then made our politicians strong but managing empire now has made them weak. You're over indexing on present-day failures and last generations successes. They were just as loony in the 70s as they are today, we just don't keep that stuff in the forefront.
The most significant and most important difference is global financialization and the outsourcing that came with it. The politicians from the 30s to the 70s had to manage domestic industry and the business leaders did too. Since the 70s, with new economic policies allowing freer movement of capital, more financialization and abstract derivatives, and then China identifying the economic angle to kill the empire, todays politicians have never had to deal with real productive forces. I don't think that makes them better or worse in this case. I think it makes them more prone to abstract thinking with fewer moments of contact with reality.
But both parties have that problem and it manifests not fundamentally as forgetting they are on the same team but rather deepening the contradictions inherent in the system through their domestic policy and rhetoric.