Withholding support to Israel would embolden the opposition here at home and have huge geopolitical implications abroad. I won't argue over whether or not it's the right thing to do, but I definitely wouldn't characterize it as a "win" for any US administration.
Tyrangle
joined 1 year ago
From a political perspective it's amazing how much of a lose-lose this situation has been for Biden and now Harris. Half the country is calling him "Genocide Joe" for supporting Israel while the other is calling him antisemitic for supposedly abandoning Israel. To be fair I think one side is arguing in bad faith and these aren't equally valid positions, but regardless not a soul in this country seems to be content with our current approach - even if it's intended as some sort of compromise.
I disagree with you but respect your honesty - you don't deserve the downvotes. I'm sure you're not the only one jaded enough by this situation to cast a protest vote.
Trump's cognitive deficiencies are old news, whereas the Biden we're seeing now is unrecognizable from the last campaign. Given the narrow margin Biden won by last time, that should be concerning to his supporters. You really think this is a media conspiracy?
Honestly at this point the DNC can pick someone - anyone - and I'd be fine with it.
To be fair I think it's too early in Pete's political career for me to say that he stands by what he says or for you to say that he doesn't. I don't think anyone can hold a candle to Bernie on ideological consistency - he would rather lose than compromise. We all admire him for that, but it makes him a better activist than politician. I say this as someone who donated to his campaign and voted for him twice.
I agree that Pete is the polar opposite, but I don't know if it's a bad thing. Early on he said that he wanted the primaries to be a debate of ideas, and that - if nominated - he would champion the platform of the party. That could be the MO of a grifter, or it could be someone who's serious about restoring democracy. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical, but if we're dismissing him because we have concerns about his healthcare plan, I'd say we're still living in 2016.
I agree that we have no idea if he'd actually go through with reforming the court if given the opportunity - I'm just pointing out that Democrats have openly called for reforming the court, on the presidential debate stage, as recently as 2019. It shouldn't be viewed as a non-starter - especially when these ideas were coming from the so-called moderate wing of the party.
On the M4A topic, it's crazy to me how its supporters have managed to ally themselves with the private healthcare lobby in opposing a competitive public option. If Medicare is more efficient than profit-driven insurance, as we all suspect, then forcing private insurance to compete with it puts us on a direct path to a single-payer system. Pete is a democratic capitalist - it shouldn't be a surprise that his version of M4A uses the system in place to get us there. If Bernie amended his bill to include a 15-year transition plan I doubt anyone would accuse him of flip-flopping.
Reforming the Supreme Court was basically Pete's thing during the primaries. He was talking about it years before Roe, Chevron, and absolute immunity. He suggested adding 6 more judges, 5 of which would be rotating appointments by the other 10. It's a shame Biden won't do anything about this - especially when there are other leaders in the party who would.
Came in here to criticize the concept of a smoking ban based on comparisons to prohibition and the "war on drugs" in America, but reading through the article it actually sounds somewhat reasonable. Using regulation to reduce nicotine content sounds fantastic - no one should be forced to smoke if they don't want to, and making tobacco less addicting might actually help to accomplish that.
Still not a fan of prohibition as a means of addressing health issues, but I suppose it's different when your country has universal healthcare.
Yes.