Fetterman to Democrats criticizing Biden: ‘Get your MAGA hat’
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) panned Democrats who are upping their criticisms of President Biden ahead of the November election, saying they might as well don a “MAGA hat.” Fetterman not…
You're viewing a single thread.
Fuck you, Fetterman.
What a fucking disappointment this guy is turning out to be compared to all the love he got on his campaign. Not that I'd prefer Oz by any means, but it's still pretty crushing.
I'm increasingly sure that the rising tide of never-Biden-ers is going to send Trump back into the White House. People need to be pragmatic and strategic about their voting and encourage others to do the same. So I understand WHY he felt a need to say stupid shit like this.
But if you're not allowed to criticize Biden without being banished to Siberia, then he's actually insufficiently different from Trump.
I'd bet Biden would not agree with Fetterman's message. He's not a whiny little thin-skinned gremlin the way Trump is. Based on his political career, he can even update platforms and change policy based on that feedback. So yeah, lay down the criticism to him re: Israel, he deserves it, and enough voices might actually change the foreign policy here. Do not tell the critics their votes aren't welcome. Their votes are still needed. And hopefully they're smart enough to know that NOT voting for Biden will create even worse outcomes, even while they continue clearly and loudly speaking up.
I’ve said this before and got downvoted but I’ll say it again. I will not tell a Muslim person or a Palestinian that they should hold their nose and vote for Biden. If the guy in charge is actively supporting a genocide and is providing the weapons that are killing your family, friend’s family, or just someone with your same religious beliefs, I don’t think we have the right to tell them they are wrong to abstain from voting for the pro genocide of their people guy. If a president was actively supporting the Nazis in killing my people, I would not have voted for that president.
It is the candidates responsibility to listen to his constituents. Not be finger wagged into voting them.
I agree that we shouldn't shame someone in that situation.
But the counterfactual still exists -- if Biden loses, that means Trump wins. And under Trump, things will be far worse. If we're calling Biden genocidal for taking a cynical and cowardly approach to the conflict, then I am not even sure what word can possibly be extreme enough to describe the guy who actively wants all Muslims and Arabs dead.
I fundamentally disagree with the view that your vote is some signal of deep personal convictions. Voting should always be strategic. The more strategic, the better. That's also why how you vote in the presidential election as a resident of California can be VERY different from how you vote as a resident of Georgia. I'd love to see a significant number of people in places like New York and Colorado voting third party in protest -- because it's not going to be enough to influence outcomes in that race, but may have a real and positive effect on future politics.
I just want everyone to think very, very carefully about what the counterfactuals are. In all things.
I am someone who will likely end up voting for Biden. But when Rashida Talib says vote uncommitted, or Bassem Yousef says the same, or Andy Levin in Michigan saying that he understands why. All I can say in response to that is I get it. I wouldn't dream of trying to talk them out of it. What I've seen people on lemmy and in general liberals do, is callously talk about people like them as if they are too dumb to understand what it is that they're saying. I would argue that they've thought about the counterfactuals and completely understand the impact of a trump presidency. They can't support the guy actively causing their people harm. Again. If I was caught between the nazi guy and the guy supporting Nazis overseas, I'd likely not vote for either.
If I was caught between the nazi guy and the guy supporting Nazis overseas, I'd likely not vote for either.
Totally understandable. But in our voting system, you're effectively supporting the Nazi Guy. You are lowering the amount of votes he needs to win. People can do whatever they want, but they don't get to act like they aren't participating when they absolutely are. Not voting ≠ not participating.
If someone understands the counterfactuals and implications of a Trump presidency and chooses to "sit out" they should absolutely be classified as supporting Trump. That's what they're doing. We need to be strategic just as much as Biden needs to be a better candidate and step his shit up.
Nope. This is Biden choosing to tank his presidency. This is not on the voters who are telling him what they need from him. 80% of democrats want a ceasefire. Biden is effectively setting up a Trump presidency all on his own.
Fine, let's say Biden is intentionally tanking his presidency. Let's say he's actually super buds with Bibi and fully supports what Israel is doing.
Even supposing that, he's still not only a better option than trump on this specific issue, but an entire slew of issues.
The only way this argument is even viable is assuming that DONALD TRUMP being in power would result in less dead Palestinians. That's absurd and I think everyone knows that.
Primary, do what you want. Send a message. The general, pick the option that results in less death in Gaza. It's gonna be Biden or Trump who wins, there is no "nobody wins" scenario on the table.
Exactly right. A vote is a chess move, not a manifesto.
Almost no real voters view voting as a chess move. Emotion matters. People can yell at what are essentially political junkies all they want on this message board, but it's not going to influence all those marginal voters with other stuff going on, and they're at risk if there are big emotional issues going on (like a genocidal war). You don't solve that problem by talking about greater evils and strategic voting.
Almost all voters strategically choose to vote for a candidate they don't actually like.
Tbf there is no US president that would have acted differently on Gaza. The alternative is to abandon an ally. Yes, that choice is morally superior, but strategically a disaster.
Doesn't change what I said. Also, I would wager that after this conflict future democratic presidents will be very different on their rhetoric with Israel. We're just stuck with the decrepit windbag that was born before Israel was established.
Also, I would wager that after this conflict future democratic presidents will be very different on their rhetoric with Israel.
I would too. They'll be supporting genocide even more overtly next time. Democrats only move to the right.
Hell man, Biden is already very different on his rhetoric with Gaza, and the language coming out of his administration is clearly evolving. I would be unsurprised to see some direct condemnations in the coming months.
I WILL, however, be surprised to see the US severing its defense agreements with Israel. There's too much seen as at-stake in the region. Hence my prior phrasing -- it's cynical and cowardly.
And it's hardly like Israel is the only unpalatable regime we formalize and prop up to serve what are estimated to be greater foreign police interests.
Hell man, Biden is already very different on his rhetoric with Gaza, and the language coming out of his administration is clearly evolving.
"Cut it out, guys. Here's more money and weapons to cut it out with."
"That's the way we've always done it" is a shitty excuse for supporting genocide.
I can think of a past presidential candidate willing to bern that bridge.
Basically no political operatives would agree with his message. You're not positively influencing voters by yelling at them and doing it as a representative of the party paints it in a negative light. We liked candidate Fetterman because he was an outsider, but this seems like the consequences of not really understanding what's effective vs. what's emotionally satisfying.