Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in Novemberā€™s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because heā€™s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying theyā€™re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet itā€™s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the ā€œuncommittedā€ movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the presidentā€™s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.

The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Bidenā€™s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israelā€™s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    4 months ago

    All Iā€™m saying is that the US citizenry was almost totally fine with the civilian deaths after 9/11, there were only a handful of protests in the US and a lot more support for that war than not (at the time).

    If they had attacked and killed 1000 Americans on Oct 7th, there would be far more dead Palestinians, and zero university encampments.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        4 months ago

        The evidence is 9/11, the US got attacked, lost almost 2000 people, and they killed around a half million civilians during the resulting fighting.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Oh you think weā€™re far enough down the thread, I forgot we covered this already?

          0.8 percent. Versus between 2 and 5 percent, generously. I can put it into per 100,000 for you if you like.

          • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            4 months ago

            So 1% is okay for civilian deaths but 2-5% is not?

            Thatā€™s a pretty arbitrary cutoff.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              4 months ago

              Itā€™s a pretty huge difference in how militaries fight. For example we didnā€™t carpet bomb entire neighborhoods in Iraq.