- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Fuck you, Biden. I’m only voting for you because the alternatives are worse.
You can’t complain about this if you consent to it.
You have never been a couch sports coach, right?
I’ve never consented to preserving the duopoly in our political system
I mean, you were never inquired about it in the first place. But that’s in the end about as valid as saying you never consented to A being a vowel.
Jill Stein 2024
I’m going a step further and not voting for him.
Do what you want, but don’t kid yourself into thinking you’ll help the situation by exercising a vote for Trump, 3rd party, or abstaining from voting. Expect a lot worse treatment for Palestine, its citizenry, and other middle eastern countries from his opponent.
That being said, you may not have to worry about who you’ll vote for ever again if the fascists gain control… you’ll have a lot of other things to worry about, but voting won’t be one of them.
I’ll vote 3rd party with you. Don’t be dissuaded by the neoliberal hate machine, we have a right to choose something better. Maybe if enough of us believe that, we could have it.
Not everybody voting against Trump are neoliberals. We just believe a 2nd Trump term will be significantly worse than a 2nd Biden term.
Voting 3rd party is just a way to make you feel like you’ve done something good without actually doing anything good. Fact is, are only 2 parties in this country.
Thank you for your support :)
“I’m only voting for you because you’re my preferred candidate.”
…uh huh
Voting.
There is no lesser evil when it comes to genocide. You have already hit rock bottom.
What if the other side is also genocide along with totalitarian fascist rule?
You still would be voting for a self proclaimed non-Jewish Zionist whose pockets are lined by Israel to commit genocide. Don’t let any “other side” or bullshit “trolley problem” argument take that away from you. At least have the balls to own it. This whole purely pragmatic approach to “lesser evil dilemma” is what brought Biden to power in the first place. But yeah surely next time it’ll be better. Doesn’t matter how many people die because “Orange man bad”.
Since I couldn’t get the message across on my first comment, let me repeat myself. There is no lesser evil when it comes to genocide.
The corollary of “there is no lesser evil”, is “there is no greater evil”. You’re saying that there is absolutely no crime that could be committed that would be worse? Like, say, genocide AND a descent into fascism? Maybe flavored with a nice sprinkling of loss of women’s rights?
Don’t forget that Trump has pretty much called for a genocide right here at home in the US, against trans people, against immigrants, and against pretty much anyone who doesn’t share his views. This doesn’t even count the stuff that his donors and PACs already have lined up for him to sign as soon as he sits his ass in the chair, or the fact that several US states have attempted to decriminalize murdering certain groups of people.
It’s just a trumpet, pay it no mind
Trump would absolutely make the genocide significantly worse than the track it’s currently on if he wins. And he’s gonna make life in the US worse too. The “both sides are equally bad” rhetoric has absolutely failed over the last 8 years. If he lost in 2016 the entire world would be on a completely different track and if you don’t want to believe it then I’m confident that you don’t actually know the differences in policy and ideologies between the Democratic and Republican parties.
And before anyone says I’m accuses me of being a liberal, I’m a libertarian socialist and I’m registered to the Socialist Party of Massachusetts. I voted Bernie in both primaries then Green Party in 2016 (which I’ve come to regret even though Clinton was going to win my home state by a huge margin) then Biden in 2020. I voted this way in '20 because while Biden ignores socialists Trump wants them all dead.
Socialism without revolution is a fringe and hopeless endeavour. It requires fundamentally changing the mechanisms by which the economy functions.
Scandinavia says ‘Hi, we found a middle ground!’
Yes, but we also have proportional representation in our parliaments. Making gradual ideological change realistic.
Ethnic exclusion, racism, a wealth of natural resources, a small population, and no real geopolitical tensions to worry about (prior to joining NATO, at least). Hm.
I’m sure this is a robust and scalable model.
It could even be reasonably argued that socdem countries, or maybe even broader speaking liberal democracies, already had the necessary revolutions we just need to get better at dismantling the remnants of the old by providing alternatives in ways that don’t risk other advances. Pretty much parallel to the Sudden Enlightenment, Gradual Cultivation doctrine you see in Zen: Neither is it guaranteed that you notice enlightenment (in the sense of realising that that’s what happened to you), nor is it in any way guaranteed that you suddenly cease to be a shithead. Nor will you find a way of gradual cultivation that makes you unlearn how to tie your shoes. Not going to happen.
Or, differently put: If you wish to convert a village to anarchism, one of the first things to do is figure out how to organise trash collection and water distribution. You might say “but it’s a state mandate that municipalities provide these things! We haven’t agreed to anything like that!”. My sibling in Discord you’re ready to abolish bedtime when you’re wise enough to voluntarily go to bed early, again. Don’t make theoretical principles the enemy of praxis.
Revolution more often than not results in authoritarianism, and is therefore just as hopeless.
There is no lesser evil when it comes to genocide.
This is obviously untrue. If the option a) is genocide and b) is genocide and also dismantling the methods to protest it, methods to oust the decision makers, dismantling national security in resources and relationships, at the same time as blatantly plundering both the pockets of citizens and communal coffers, there’s very obviously a more evil option.
Equivocation and black-white thinking is comfortable, but there are still shades of brown when the shit has hit the fan.
In the best of worlds you wouldn’t be in this situation, now you are, make the better choice.
shades of brown
That bit of poetry touched my heart. Thank you.
Yeah so let’s elect a man that said he’d be a dictator to the highest office and put him in charge of the largest military on the globe. Sounds like a nice alternative in our facsimile of democracy.
Lemmy sure does seem to have a more vocal insane minority that are either Russian shills, or just want to burn down the US. This is my biggest issue with the fediverse.
Anyone who claims Trump and Biden are the same is just a fool.
There is no purpose to that line of thinking in our election system. They believe you should vote for who you truly want and do not compromise. In a perfect world this is how it would be. We do not inhabit a perfect world, it is our job to build towards it. The only thing to do in the interim is to make sure the American Empire is not brandished as a sword of Trump’s will and push to change the way we vote to a ranked system. It is easier to start this ranked movement locally and then take it to the feds.
Yeah a lot of people here are ideologues without a real ideology, they don’t really have much interest in actually making things better they’re just desperate to feel superior to the rest of us. Basically conspiracy theory mentality ‘I know the real truth and you’re all dumb’ but ‘I’m more ideologically pure than you’ that’s why it’s always such extreme and totally one sided - they won’t interact with the reality because it makes it harder to feel so correct when you admit things like this conflict is incredibly complex politically and morally
I agree.
Dearest Biden,
Please stop trying to get Trump elected.
Pleasant Regards, Everyone who gives a shit about abortion access.
Only reason Biden is free to support genocide is because his opponent is Trump. It is the current political climate responsible for Israel’s blatant disregard to humanity.
This is why Biden doesn’t care about his campaign promises. He just has to use the name Trump a few times in his speech and call several minority groups “the fabric of society” while doing nothing to help them. The only people winning during the next election is the lobbyists and the “bOtH muh SiDeS” people (the ones who complain if you critique about their favorite party).
Doing nothing to help them is still clearly better than doing everything possible to hurt them.
Remember, Trump moved the whole US embassy to Jerusalem just to give Palestinians the middle finger. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1I810Z/ You can be sure that a very high majority of US politicians will take the same pro-Israel stand. The reason is simply campaign funding and lobbying. Look at AIPAC
fucking seriously. he won’t step aside, and he won’t stop holding it over the abyss.
he wants to make it as painful as possible to vote for him, but I just… I know at this point I can’t, abd I’m starting to see much less radical people than me make that call.
Grow up.
that’s not really a response to anything I said, its just suggesting that I’m a child and my opinions dont matter until they match yours. which is kinda shitty.
possibly because you dont have any coherent criticism of what I said, but dont want to change your beliefs or admit mine could also be valid?
I don’t think it was suggesting it.
Because Trump would have handled this better?
Only reason we didn’t end up with a war in Iran in 2020 is pure fucking luck.
No, Trump is clearly fucking worse… but I don’t want free Palestine folks to have a reason not to vote for Biden.
That doesn’t make any sense.
If Iran is allied with Russia, and Trump is Putin’s puppet, then wouldn’t Trump be good for Iran?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/10/iran-nuclear-bomb-iaea-fordow/
Trump had an Iranian general assassinated with a drone strike on an airport in Iraq in January 2020, killing 10 people. The fallout from that almost escalated into a war.
Only reason everyone forgot it was because 2020 was a super shitty year.
Brought to you by decades of Israeli lobbying money mixed with gullible religious morons in the U.S. legislature. Money in politics leads to genocide.
In 2023 Israel spent $4 million in lobbying and got $4 billion in aid. We should pool together and buy ourselves some politicians, y’all. No other investment reliably returns 1000:1.
We should pool together and buy ourselves some politicians, y’all.
Traditionally, one calls that “forming a party” but unfortunately we live in a two-party system.
It should be noted that the $4B Israel got wasn’t just $4B for Israel. It was $4B for purchase of US weapons systems too Israel. And it wasn’t just Israel lobbying for this spending. You had a host of MIC lobbyists throwing in their own millions.
It should further be noted that AIPAC isn’t just doing a one-time $4M retail purchase of legislation. They’ve spend decades building up an enormous back bench of former US Congresscritters, allied staffers, political bundlers, event organizers, and religious affiliates. They injected $4M down the funnel in an 11th-hour push for the next traunch of military kick-backs that they’ve been receiving since the Bush 43 administration.
No other investment reliably returns 1000:1.
Its important to recognize that Israel provides an incredibly vital service to the US military in the form of maintaining control of the Suez Canal. Its not just a 1000:1 ROI. They’re holding Egyptian national leadership at gunpoint and we’re kicking them over some money to keep the gun loaded.
“Biden and his administration are doing all they can” my ass!
They’re exactly as beholden to the Israeli apartheid state as all the previous ones going back to 1948, if not MORE than many of them.
Just one example of many that the DNC is still stuck in 1992 and almost half as unresponsive to the will of the majority of the people as the literal fascists on the other side of the aisle 🤬
They are doing all they can to cover for Israel, while attempting to appear neutral.
Someone remind me again why does the US, or any country, have veto power in the UN?
A veto power basically makes the entire institution useless.
Because without it there would be no UN, and as useless as you think the current UN is, I promise you no UN is even more useless.
It’s bleak but the fact that we can even get everybody in the same room is remarkable. Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (or, Russia, China, etc) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs.
Justify how there would be no UN without such veto. Because, honestly, an agreement council where you can only agree as a group to do something if the big players don’t say otherwise to me looks like it just compounds the eternal problems we already have and is nothing more than just another flavour of “feel free to protest in a way that does not importunate me” Capitalism.
Wasn’t that why the League of Nations failed?
The League of Nations failed because it was toothless, and basically did have extreme veto powers built in for world powers.
Countries weren’t abiding by their obligations to directly intervene with attacks on member nations when a world power was an aggressor because doing so would create severe political problems for them. To this end the UN have their own armed forces for such issues.
Do you honestly think the UN is that effective when it concerns international human rights? They approved a ceasefire in Gaza and nothing happened. There’s a two-year long genocide in Ukraine and the UN just let’s the Russian Ambassador carry on, and they’ve done nothing to stop them.
Things like food aid and whatnot they’re obviously helpful with, but if the League of Nations was toothless then the UN is wearing dentures in my mind lol
You say that all have the same power but Its never the small countries vetoing the big questions though.
Its always USA , China or Russia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
He didn’t say all nations have the same power in the UN. He said the opposite. Read the comment before you reply to it
“Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (…) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs.”
Ah I see. I misread. It still stands though that to bring the big guys to the table, we give them the chance to have it their way and therefore get nowhere with the big questions
Only permanent members of UNSC have veto powers.
So the only way to get the big guys to the table is by giving them the option to have it their way by force
I know that there are pro’s and cons to this but IMO its too much power
Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN,[5] as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.[6]
(From wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power)
Only the five permanent members have a veto power on the security council. USA, China, Russia, UK, and France.
No one else has the power to veto.
In fact, I think grandparent was talking about a hypothetical and counterfactual world where every nation had the same powers at the UN.
- it’s* never the small countries
- It’s* always the USA
See league of nations.
US, China, Russia, France, and the UK have veto power over Security Council resolutions because they are the ones who are called upon to actually enforce Security Council resolutions.
if that were the argument, China, Russia, France and the UK could now act to enforce the resolution if the US is not doing it. After all, they have veto power too, right?
A veto means the resolution does not pass in the first place.
deleted by creator
The threat of violence.
U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood told the Security Council that the veto “does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood but instead is an acknowledgment that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties.”
Fuck you Robert Wood!
I would love to see an Internet campaign to bombard him with “Fuck You Robert Wood, the coward.”
Reminder the US is an imperialist power that is evil.
Reminder anyone actually describing things as evil has the intellect of a child and no concept of reality
Wow your such an intellectual. So you wanna tell me rape, torture, genocide are all not evil? What about pedophilia? What the nazis did? Is that evil? Killing innocent civilians?
No they’re not 'evil t’hey’re heinous acts committed by humans, but what we’re really taking about is people and collections of people - they’re not some spiritual terror hellbent on causing pain they’re normal people with parents and likely children they love, friends and ambitions and hopes for the world.
Acting like things you don’t agree with are evil allows you to hate them without question, of course they must ve stopped they’re only trying to hurt people… and of course you shouldn’t bother to question your own team they’re good so a thing they do is justified in the fight against evil… which is how you become someone else’s evil.
Throw out childish bronze age notions of how reality works and sccept the complexity which is all around us and turns everything into a Grey area.
The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favor, the United States opposed and two abstentions, from the United Kingdom and Switzerland. U.S. allies France, Japan and South Korea supported the resolution.
Pretty interesting
The US veto allows their allies to vote for popularity without being bound
We won’t know if that happened here but it could have influenced it
I posed a question in another thread, but this one seems like it’s winning:
Who would represent Palestine if they had been accepted? Who can represent Palestine?
Well in a 2 state solution, you’d expect the Palestinians to be able to choose.
Unless we don’t want a 2 state solution.
Right. But wouldn’t they need a Palestine state before being eligible to join the UN? With unified leadership to represent them?
Seems like a prerequisite.
139 countries recognize Palestine as a state. Officially, they’re a non member observer state.
Which of their two “governments” is being represented though?
That’s putting the cart before the horse. You can’t say “you have to have conducted a general election before you become a nation state.”
That would be like telling a slave they can’t become a free person unless they’ve already got a job that pays them direct wages.
That’s not accurate. A UN recognition of nation state is not a pre requisite for self governance. FIFA recognizes more nations than the UN. If Taiwan can’t be recognized by the UN I don’t think there’s reasonable expectation for Palestine.
A UN recognition of nation state is not a pre requisite for self governance.
I’m not saying it is a prerequisite. Historically being free was not a prerequisite for being paid some kind of wage at times either, for that matter.
Historically, many former colonial nations gained their independence before being able to hold free and fair elections. Kenya for example, or South Africa.
Palestine is in a similar state at present.
Unless we don’t want a 2 state solution.
More importantly Isreal as well as the PA reject the idea of a 2 state solution.
Besides that being false (well, at least for the PA), nobody should care what Israel has to say on the matter. Anyone committing genocide loses their right to an opinion on the matter.
PA, you know Gaza isn’t Palestine. Plus the two state is set at the founding of Israel, and both Israel and Palestine have equal rights to be represented in the UN.
It is another story that Israel is trying deliberately to undermine Palestinian rights and oppose any statehood. All the road blocks, checkpoints, walls, settlement etc. built and imposed to the Palestinian population are completely illegal according to international law, but again Israel backed by the US act with extreme impunity.
Why hasn’t PA held elections for 20 years or so?
Under this thought process, if Gaza isn’t Palestine, should the Palestinians’ state be recognized, what happens to Gaza? Is it absorbed into Israel? From what I can tell I don’t think this is gonna fly, almost anyone talking about this and the Gazans themselves don’t agree it seems
Never said that, What is a Palestinian territory is defined in 1948. Where it is clearly stated what should belong to Israel and what to Palestine.
I mean, that ship has sailed though right? Israel will never agree to that unless it’s destroyed.
I guess so, but Israel is acting like this because they have the US behind their back, and I am sure if this wasn’t the case they would not be so reckless and act with such impunity in the region and it is a failure of the US to rein them.
I’m not as sure of that as you are, but I hope we get to find out soon.
They’d probably have all been murdered by muslim fanatics without outside support, something I feel far roo many here would support.
You mean exactly what Israel is doing right now? Because they don’t seem fazed by the high civilian casualties or the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Taiwan can’t get recognized despite its government being a founding member of the UN and folks surprised it’s contentious for Palestine to be recognized?
This outcome was by no means surprising, especially as it was not Palestine’s first application for membership and the US has even vetoed resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Palestine on several occasions. The difference to your comparison, however, is that Israel itself, unlike China, has no right of veto in the UN Security Council.
Of course the UN is a joke anyway, so it’s not like this really matters in any way.
To the surprise of absolutely no one
WTH
Was curious what was the US’s perspective/reasoning behind not voting for it. From the article…
U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood told the Security Council that the veto “does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood but instead is an acknowledgment that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties.”
The United States has “been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York — even with the best intentions — will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people,” deputy State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said.
