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.
Dude, I don’t think you understood my comment.
If politicians/corporate media came out and said, it’s unfortunate but there’s too much money, power, assets on the line, we have to let Israel’ genocide continue and we have to continue to support them for X, Y, and Z reason I’d actually feel respected.
My understanding is that those groups have regularly dismissed any evidence that the genocide is happening, they’ve claimed protests by student and university faculty are stupid and due to them being brainwashed, and most-improtantly they’ve claimed anyone that doesn’t support Israel hates Jews.
Can you please respond with a slightly better understanding of my comment? Please ask if something’s not clear.
Do you even care how their lies erode the trust Americans could/should have in there leaders and institutions?
Removed by mod
Gotta admit, it’s interesting how I specifically mentioned politicians and media networks and you responded by alluding to a vague “government” entity that seemingly acts on its own.
In my mind, the government is just a name for the politicians people elected. It’s like saying corporations seek profit like they have feelings and desires or something, and not like they’re falling explicit laws and instructions set forth by politicians, which again are human beings that we’ve specifically elected.
That said, at least you answered my question, albeit without ever actually considering it