Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’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 Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’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.

  • subversive_dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    There would certainly be peace the day after a nuclear apocalypse too

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oddly enough, there wasn’t after the bombing of Pearl harbor.

      Tit for tat. Sorry our tat was bigger.

        • YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I don’t recall ever saying that.

          I apologized our boom was bigger. It was genuine. Should never have happened.

          I would, however, argue that a blow designed to end combat is more ethical than one intended to wound and mame.