The real issue here is that this has been a strategy of the DNC for years. As much as they’d like to deny it, they are responsible for the rise of Trump and extremism. But we’ll be asked to pretend that didn’t happen, again.
When you endorse racist fascists to win, you’re no better than those wh osupport them.
Or you know, vote for someone who wouldn’t support it in the first place…which you could do if the DNC didn’t collude with fascists to keep alternative voices silenced.
Reducing a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing to an “international policy” is gross.
If it were up to me, I would see the Republican party dismantled. Were I a member, I would vote for it’s dissolution. But thing is, they can nominate whoever they like, including a fascist psychopath. That he’s second most likely to win is a direct result of GOP and DNC collusion.
So ethnic cleansing and support thereof is now reduced to “a policy?” That’s a big oof.
Biden mishandled COVID, has slowly re-enacted some of Trump’s worst policies on immigration, abandoned those who, at no small risk to themselves, supported us in Afghan, has presided over a massive increase in the cost of housing… and I guess, on the bright side, forgave a fraction of a percent of the student loans he said he’d forgive.
Maybe it’s time to support someone who doesn’t have the blood of countless innocents on his hands.
Objectively, he has been a mediocre president whose most impressive victories have stemmed from the fact that the economy was already recovering from a worldwide pandemic. His handling of the withdrawl from Afghanistan was an appalling travesty that got countless innocents killed, his two-faced positions on Gaza (lamenting the human rights abuses while cutting aid and supplying weapons,) the fact that the interest rate for home loans has skyrocketed in an already difficult to afford housing market, and quite honestly, his racist and homophobic past make him difficult to swallow.
It’s interesting how wilfully ignorant people get when the data doesn’t support their candidate. I should be angry, but at this point it’s become so comical that I have to laugh.
Probably the most relevant line in the entire article:
a series of polls have suggested Biden will narrowly beat Trump in the November vote. But with eight months to go, and the polls so tight, this could change and a number of polls have also indicated that Trump will win the election.
Whether Biden wins or loses is going to come down to how well he engages people in key states. Outside of the “blue no matter who” crowd, people have decidedly mixed feelings about voting for a candidate whose strongest argument is that he isn’t Trump. Everything from events in the weeks leading up to the election to the weather (which affects Dems more than Reps) will matter, so rather than leaning on polls that suggest a victory… it might be wise to end those behaviors and policies that have human rights advocates concerned.
Incels using a word offensively does not make the word inherently offensive, and by letting them reframe the word in their favor you’re giving them power they do not deserve.
When using male/female to denote biological sex, the words should not be offensive. “Were you born malr or female” in a medical settting can be vital to treatments, for example.
Generally, though, people ought to be using gender.
Part of it is either Reddit manipulating search positioning or Google (most people’s default search) prioritizing Reddit results. Searching for answers to questions often results in a half page of Reddit links. They may not be relevant, but that doesn’t become apparent until you’re there.
Dunno, but I can tell you my opinion on the cockwaffle in these comments calling women sluts, if you like?
Not as such. I’m saying exactly what I said… that there’s a strong democratic skew in this survey, which is not immediately apparent in the story. That is valuable information for anyone wanting to understand the results… not so much for someone looking to “hur hur” over the performance of the other.
These results are interesting, though the article does note that the overall results seem to map along party lines for mote contemporary presdients (with notable exceptions, like Clinton.) In case anyone wonders, the polling pool was:
“…current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association … as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses.”
So, not a general survey in case anyone wonders.
Edit: I do wonder how balanced this survey was, though… if Obama was 6th and 15h and Biden was 13th among Democrats and 30th among Republicans, and nonetheless 14th overall, it does suggest that the poll was heavily skewed toward Democratic respondents. Nothing wrong with that, just food for thought.
It shows nothing of the sort.
There was approximately a zero percent chance, statistically, that the superdelegates would vote for anyone beyond Biden. There was nearly no chance that a challenger would have been received with anything but contempt. This “logic” is the same logic both Reps and Dems use to gaslight third party challengers, too. “If you try real hard you can overcome our utter control of the debates and privileged position to win! We promise!”
Alternately, there WAS a choice and the vast majority of Democrats are okay with a candidate who is 100% okay cutting off aid to the victims of ethnic cleansing. I prefer to hope that that isn’t the case.
We’ve been given the choice between an insane fascist and an ethnic cleansing apologist. That the second is the “good” option is utterly shameful.
Given that the system is heavily skewed toward incumbency, your comment is a bit disingenuous. We both know that the DNC intended Biden to run. He had the advantage of thier coffers, thier PR machine, and the support of their leadership. Implying that the playing field was at all fair ignores reality.
I do agree, though, that Biden’s many faults are his own. His most recent failure, support for ethnic cleansing and denial of aid to refugees, should have made him unelectable by the party that claims to be pro-human rights… but here we are, with him as the best of two terrible candidates.
And those prices do not go below the cost to run those properties, which has gone up significantly. But of course, it’s easy to ignore the millions of people struggling if your goal is to put a shine on a rich politician with no real insight into thier struggles.
Yes, that $40 off a month is doing a lot to make up for the explosive increases we’ve seen. And I’m sure that spike in interest rates will have no long lasting effects.
Landlords do not eat the cost, nor do they often lower rent if they can get away with charging the same or more. “Due to lower expenses on our side, we are dropping rent by 5%” said very few landlords ever, except in fantasy land.
Biden do be out of touch.
You still need a place to live. Tell me, what happens when the cost of buying property goes up, if you’re a renter? Where does the extra money you have go spend on housing come from?
I guess I wouldn’t care as much if I were a rich politician either.
deleted by creator