Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “Democracy is on the line, we are facing down fascism.”
“And I personally know what my life felt like having Trump as the president of this country, and I know what it felt like for my constituents, and for people around this country and around the world,” Omar continued. “We have to do everything that we can to make sure that does not happen to our country again.”
Sure, but “right now” you need to vote for Biden or risk never being able to vote again.
and the general election is eight fucking months away, so it’s 100% justifiable to vote however the fuck I want to in the primary.
Which I did, and I voted uncommitted. And I will vote for not Trump in November. But don’t mistake my enthusiasm for “not living in a fascist theocratic state” for enthusiasm towards Biden, because it’s not and never will be.
Apologies. I wasn’t talking about the primaries. I was talking about the presidential election.
Edit: I didn’t realize they were talking about the primaries. My bad.
Edits aside, that is kinda the issue. I have disliked Biden not because he’s Biden, but largely because I feel he’s a little more conservative of a president than I would like. Will I vote for him still if he’s up against Trump? Unless he genuinely gives me a reason to think he’d be as bad as Trump (pretty damn unlikely), yes. But I very much dislike his handling of the Israeli - Palistinian conflict, so much so that during the primaries I voted uncommitted. But every time I bring up my opinion, the default is not to say that I must be implicitly be a Trump supporter because I’m not 100% behind Biden. I live in the southeastern US, so I absolutely have family that are Trump supporters, and that argument of all or nothing is sounds very similar in my mind to those that support Trump. I’d argue that this rhetoric of total support will most likely be more damaging than not for the democrats, as it has actually made me more wary about voting for Biden than I suspect I would be otherwise.
All I’m seeing here is that you don’t seem to understand how the spoiler effect works in an entrenched two-party political system, which this is. Also, it appears you’re not aware of how absurdly tilted to the right the electoral mechanisms have become in this country - largely due to gerrymandering, and the continued refusal of Congress to reapportion the number of Representatives in the house from the cap imposed in 1929.
I would say it is a spoiler effect if another candidate was running in the democratic party, but there wasn’t, so now it pretty much the choice between Biden and Trump (I doubt there are many on the fence voters at this point). I also very much understand gerrymandering, I am a left leaning voter in NC after all. What is troubling is that it seems the simple solution is to not support Israel and back the UN in investigation of war crimes and handing out aid. But when you suggest that, the default is often to suspect that I am actively suggesting not to vote for Biden (I’m not), and that I am implicitly supporting Trump (who I acknowledge would handle the situation way worse). The reason I am worried about this is that it is very reminiscent of Trump voters that follow with questioning the reason why, which I have seen firsthand. There are likely going to be other big issues raised during this election year, and if they are often answered like this it isn’t exactly confidence inspiring.
Question: If they run an even worse candidate next time, which considering the trend of them all, they will; Will you finally allow leftists to stop blindly voting for a party that doesn’t reflect their values?
At what point will the responsibility be on the dems to appeal to us, instead of us blindly backing the blue against our better wishes?
The answer is never, so it’s time to start organizing now. Labor unions are on the rise for the first time in a century, and historically are an incredibly strong voting bloc. Coordination between them could lead to a proper leftist party, split from the Dems.
Splitting the left would result in a permanent Republican majority.
That presupposes the Republican party survives. They’ve put a lot of capital into Trump, and if he loses this November there’s a good chance he’s just dead before he gets a chance to run again. None of the other claimants to the throne are anywhere near as popular amongst the cult.
Nobody is suggesting we get a leftist party together for November. That’s just not possible, and getting a president would be meaningless. Organize for midterms, start getting house and congress seats. Work with the Dems while the Republican threat remains, but prepare for when their movement collapses to infighting
That’s true. I think there is a reasonable chance that the right-wing could split or collapse.
There is an interesting parallel here with Canada, which also has a FPTP system. Canada is more progressive than the US, so it already has two left-wing parties (one more centre-left than the other). But, for about a decade in the 90s, the right wing party split in two and this guaranteed electoral success for the centre-left Liberal Party. The interesting thing is that this was actually bad for the Liberal Party. They became arrogant, internally fractious, and scandal-prone. When the two right-wing parties re-merged, the Liberals suffered their worst defeat in history.
If the Republicans in the US split into two right-wing parties, there might be room for two left-wing parties as well. In fact, it would be good if a left-wing split ensured that the Dems weren’t guaranteed electoral success, as this would lead them into making stupid mistakes. However, if the right-wing later re-united, the left would have to be prepared to reunite again as well. The problem is that the US is more right-wing than Canada, so vote-splitting on the left is more of a worry.
All of that said, it would be interesting to see how much support a left-wing working class party would have. I recall that there were midwest working class voters who were prevaricating between Trump and Bernie, not between Trump and Hillary/Biden. They didn’t care about left vs. right politics as much as they wanted to vote for someone who would bring good working class jobs back to the Rust Belt. A left-wing party that really focused on bread and butter working class issues and not culture war bullshit might do well, but it’s too risky when Trump is the alternative.
If moderates can’t get over their unwillingness to compromise with progressives and leftists the split is guaranteed.
Genuinely curious, how is Joe worse than Hillary?
And the real fun begins when you look at what the Dems do in the primaries. Progressives get outfunded in favor of “centrist” Dems BY the DNC and DGA, and the DNC/DGA also have a bad habit of trying to elevate the craziest Republican to the general election in states all over the country.
The DNC et al would like very much to continue forcing democratic voters to vote for them to save the democracy the party are actively undermining.
Yall watch that bit on John Oliver about the mark robinson? I looked into it. Yes, the DGA ran their game (“attack” ads designed elevate fringe candidates into the public consciousness) in North Carolina and helped him secure the Republican nomination.
How much can a voter force a party like “that” left?
And since DNC pulled NH primary delegates for something only republicans can change and Biden supported it…
We can’t even use your point to convince people.
This sham of a Dem primary might be our last.
Do you think NH republicans learned their lesson and will change NH state law so the NH Dem primary doesn’t have to be first?
Or do you think they’ll leave the law in place so in 2028 the DNC cancels the NH primary again?
The only people that can fix it are NH republicans and the DNC. And the DNC seems fine with just not letting NH Dems have a say in who the candidate is.
What’s stopping the DNC from canceling other states that vote progressive like NH was?
They’ve already argued in court they can do what they want, because primary is nonbinding and they can just ignore it anyways.
This is the danger of just blindly supporting Dems no matter what. They keep acting more and more like Republicans
DNC conspiracy theory nonsense gets so tiresome. You had some legitimate grievances over what happened with Bernie, but not really in the recent primary. Unless you can name the challenger to Biden that was worth spending money holding the primary for.
I sincerely hope the far left does fall in line with its own party eventually, with some voting reform we could make a multiparty system viable. For now though, much like in WW2, we have fascists to defeat. Regardless of how much liberals and communists may dislike each other, we are at least capable of civil cooperation.
It’d just be nice if you stopped trying to attack all forms of liberalism so hard and take over the dem party just like MAGA took over the repubs. It won’t work on educated people in the same way fascism can convince the uneducated. We tend to know the difference between liberal and neo-liberal.
I mean you say ‘legitimate grievances’ then proceed to ignore what happened to NH.
The reality of the situation that we’re all in is that oarty primaries are the only ‘real’ mechanism we get to engage with democracy in a material way, and time and time again the stewards of those parties are thumbing the scales towards specific outcomes.
You acknowledge it, then dismiss it as ‘nonesense’. It’s not fucking nonsense. There is almost nothing ‘democratic’ about the DNCs primary process. If you run a competitive race but aren’t the predidermined party leadership acceptable candidate, they steal it from you, in fact, they’ll conspire to do so. If a state ‘votes wrong’, they take your primary from you. It’s material and real you chucklefuck and dismissing it trivializes the real consequences it has around voter disenfranchisement.
If we consider the primary process to be a part of our political system, and we should because it is, the DNC is less democratic than some of the lowest ranking “democracies” in the planet. The RNC didn’t rig their primary to stop Trump. The DNC did so to stop Bernie, twice. And when a state which was one of the first in the nation primaries gave the primary to the non-dccc candidate, they took the primary away from that state.
It’s an indefensible mockery of the word democracy to call the DNCs primary a democratic process
Conveniently skipped over where I asked someone, and anyone can do this, to name the viable leftist challenger in the recent NH primary, that would make holding it worthwhile.
And really, can name a non-leftist challenger too if you want, if you really think Dean had a real shot or something.
The degree of personal attacks and cherry-picked arguments in here is remarkable.
Oh stfu you pedant.
You are dismissing the structural critique that makes your first point irrelevant.
There are no viable challengers because the DNC has repeatedly changed the rules or moved the goal posts to prevent that from happening again.
Ah, more conspiracy theory. Bernie ran just fine. Twice. He’s not even a registered democrat. You got any evidence of the new rule that prevented it from happening this time, or just an anonymous claim on the internet?
God you are a coward.
My, sure does get personal fast when people don’t just agree with folks.
From my perspective, it’s you guys who ennervate. Is there a point to reading any more of the couple a paragraphs or is it all pompous nonsense about how you ‘just know better’ without a shred of shame?
Read something jackalope. And write something worth reading.
Personal and tribal attacks. You can be better.
Hey, you can too! You shortened your ridiculous whining down to 2 sentences i can dismiss more quickly.
Show me the meat in your argument and ill bite.
Read your previous comment again and think of how else you might improve, professor
That’s cute and all, but we’re not all teens here.
Youre right. I’m 45 and officially over your arrogant, empty words. You could have at any point attempted to argue a point but chose to act like a know it all instead (while providing nothing except vitriol.)
which as you say is pretty effin’ childish.
Make. A. Point. Or admit you have nothing but faith.
Yeah, you sure sound 45 on the internet.
> like in WW2, we have fascists to defeat
that’s what leftists are saying, and that’s why they are saying not to vote for democrats, too. it’s like you’re saying if we don’t vote for mussolini, we’ll get hitler. well i’m not voting for either of them.
Right, because the best way to fight fascists is to let them take over. Brilliant!
Oh, and do you not think Omar and the rest of the squad leans left? Because she just said she plans to vote Biden. Or they just not progressive enough for you?
>Right, because the best way to fight fascists is to let them take over.
you don’t seem to get that mussolini was a fascist too.
Yeah, he invented it. You equating Biden with Mussolini? Because I’m not seeing the hyper-nationalism, the militarism, the subjugation of the individual for the state, the undemocratic holding of power, etc etc etc.
Unless you believe in the right-wing conspiracy theories anyway. Hmm…
>Unless you believe in the right-wing conspiracy theories anyway
what right wing conspiracy theory are you talking about? this appears to be an attempt to pigeonhole me and my legitimate criticisms.
Only way I can think of Biden fitting the fascist glove, is if someone believes Trump’s lines about the election. Otherwise it just doesn’t make sense.
oh. let me help you out:
he wrote the patriot act
he wrote the crime bill
he voted for every military intervention for the last 50 years, sometimes grandstanding on making them happen
i don’t know about the undemocratic holding of power: i’m pretty sure that the appearance of democracy is a desirable trait for any authoritarian regime, but when less than half the eligible populace votes, how can you claim any government is democratic?
Patriot Act:
On October 23, 2001, U.S. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced House bill H.R. 3162, which incorporated provisions from a previously-sponsored House bill, and a Senate bill introduced earlier in the month.[5] The next day, October 24, the Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66,[6] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming majority of “no”-votes. The three Republicans voting “no” were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho, and Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted “no”.[7]
He did draft the Senate version of the '94 crime bill, you’re half right on that one, though only half since his draft wasn’t that different from the House version. Though I’m not sure that makes him a fascist.
Regarding the WoT, we were attacked, I’ll remind you. Democratic countries responding to attacks does not make them militaristic fascists. Did we conquer anything?
Lastly, people have the liberty to vote or not. That supersedes any authoritarian requirement that they do so, in most people’s opinions anyway. People are free to vote if they wish, and if they vote him out, he’ll leave.
People complaining about the process of the Democratic Primary this year seem to have forgotten that there is only one viable candidate this time around. If somebody else viable had announced his candidacy this year, I would be there with you all the way. However, if an open primary implies that Biden has to debate anti-vaxer Kennedy as his closest competitor, I don’t see what the point is. This primary is not rigged by the DNC, but by other candidates (e.g. Whitmer/Newson/AOC) not running.
Sorry to chime in, but I find this particular debate/conversation going on within Liberal and Leftist circles interesting and at times frustrating.
While I don’t buy that the DNC is involved or cultivating some sort of conspiracy to take the election, I do believe every US election from here on out will be a choice between Capitalist Technocracy and Imperialism and outright Theocratic Fascism. Do I prefer one? Sure (not fascism), do I think it’s even remotely ideal? Not at all. Am I pissed that I’m at times criticized for wanting something unrealistic?
Yes, because a reality where those are constantly the two options presented EVERY election is pathetic and points to the fact we’re just prolonging the end of US democracy because it failed to evolve into a socialist democracy soon enough and thusly became vulnerable to fascist rhetoric.
This is more likely the reality than “we can turn back fascism now and next year, when Biden is president, then we can protest what you want.” That simply isn’t what’s going to happen. Trump is just the beginning of a Fascist wave, the ideology of Fascism, White Supremacy, and Theocracy has been allowed to fester for too long in America and it’s like a cancer that has grown too deep for a single chemo treatment to treat it. You’ve got to cut it out stem and all, and that isn’t a peaceful or painless process.
The left that is pro Palestine and calling out the war in Gaza as the genocide it is are the future of The Democratic Party in America whether you like it or not, unless we’re finally going to splinter from Bipartisan politics, which I just don’t see happening. But we can always justify lesser of two evils when the enemy is fascism. Very much how Netanyahu needs Hamas (as evidenced by his rhetoric and past policies, so too does the Democratic Party need Fascists deeply seeded in the ranks of the Republican party.
This ensures that Democrats don’t have to enact laws that align more with the increasingly more leftist leaning public’s desires for an end to American Imperialism, and can simply be not Fascists to win election after election after election.
All until Capitalism destroys not just this country, but the majority of humanity at large, because just like any dying empire, America has become a nation controlled by an elite class that, regardless of party, solely desire to retain the status quo regardless of the consequences to those not within said elite class.
So yeah, I’m voting Biden, but I don’t expect Fascism to move even an inch regardless of the victor. It’ll be there the next morning, and 4 years from now to try its hand again…and 8 years from now…again and again…until finally we fall.
We’ve had many chances to stomp Fascism in the head while still in the cradle, and we slept on it cuz we needed to “be fair” (but only to white supremacist fascists) and give Fascism a voice at the table in a Democratic system, and look how that infection spread! Now when it’s at our doorsteps we want to fight it in an election!? Give me a break. If you think your vote matters, you haven’t been paying attention. We’re already a Fascist dictatorship, we just think that means boots and bad moustaches and killing Jews, but Fascism is just a nation state where those with the money make the rules and the people don’t. Sound familiar?
So…
You’re saying Biden was going to win no matter what, so the DNC yanking NH delegates and Biden being outspoken in support of that is fine?
If he was going to win anyways, why would Biden and the DNC risk taking that incredibly undemocratic step?
Why wouldn’t they just let the most progressive candidate win NH for the third time?
Why remove their delegates and have Biden publicly take himself off the ballot just to spend campaign money on a write in campaign?
How is any of what Biden and the DNC logical if you’re right?
The main point is that if you are ever putting pressure on NH to change the date on their primary election, then this is the time.
Except NH state government is all Republican and the only one that can change the law that NH goes first…
The DNC told NH Dems they had to violate state election laws or lose their delegates.
That is a giant fucking issue, and something I thought republicans wouldn’t even sink to.
There’s no choice, and you acting like there was isn’t a good look.
Did you just not know the details?
Or do you think the DNC telling a state party to break election laws is no big deal?