Why didn't genocide matter in Yemen under the past three presidents? Were you out there wailing your stance against?
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Why didn't genocide matter in Yemen under the past three presidents? Were you out there wailing your stance against?
To be fair, inflation has been fixed by Dems (and Feds).
A lot of people opposed that too.
I don't recall it popping up in the election threads back then. It's like it didn't matter overall.
It "mattered less" as a political issue because it has a different political meaning.
The Biden administration and Democrats as a whole didn't just support this "genocide" / whatever you want to call it, they were loudly telling you that this was a righteous cause and that if you opposed it you were evil.
Ah yes, those Democrats.
Please read this if only for my entertainment:
http://appropriations.house.gov/new...passes-israel-security-assistance-support-act
Republicans... are demented about Israel?
Weak Whataboutism. Fiest Yemen is not genocide, is a civil war and unlike israel, is not a monster that had been created by the west and fed for 80 years by the US. Protected internationally and building for them a top tier army that is crushing civilians. And giving billions yearly to support and apartheid regime and a settlement occupation
Yemen is a civil war where factions (iran -SA proxies) fight for power and saudi arabia is heavily involved buying arms from the US. Not in any metric the same. Yemen is a horrifying conflict with millions of deaths, the only conflict that i donate by the way but the level of responsability from the US is not remotely the same. And the ideology behind is much worse than a civil war against one of the best armies vs no army/country starving people just because they are from another ethmogroup and this with the support of US in the UN, harassing members of the ICC and arming them even more and giving mor funding
And yes, i know you tried the angle of that is a high-profile (media wise) than other conflicts like yemen and sudan (and others) but for everything else i expose is not the same
The thing about this is, is sure the inflation rate has returned to a normal manageable number, but the prices never return to pre-inflation levels. So the average person still feels the effects of inflation whenever they purchase food or gas. It's going to take more time before people's anchor points adjust to the new price levels, which is unfortunate for any Dem candidate because it is going to be a talking point the Reps hammer on regardless of how misleading it is.
As expected, CNN now reporting that if Biden drops out, he’s likely to ask his delegates to support Harris.
Would be so stupid, guaranteed loss, but at least the Dems can blame the bigots for not voting a woman of color, instead of actually choosing an electable candidate (at this stage, Whitmer is probably the only one).
Thanks for the replies.
If they attempt to anoint Harris, it will be further proof the party is controlled by a clique of elites instead of by public sentiment. They need to do a proper mini primary and allow the 4-5 expected contenders to face off in a debate so the public can decide who has the best chance of beating Trump.
It seems you're rather passionate about humanity as a whole. Is Gaza different for you compared to other atrocities, genocides, and wars in your lifetime? Like familial ties, heritage, religious beliefs, other reason? Do you advocate against a US president, or other world leader, when waging war and arms supplying to support wars only cross into the genocide realm?
There are persons that would label what is occurring in Yemen is genocide. Do you believe they are wrong? What exactly constitutes genocide in your eyes? Strictly by the Genocide Convention? Do you believe there are outliers that extend beyond the term itself?
What's your take on the following? Each with its take on why Yemen is a genocide and genocides can occur from civil war.
https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20190128-the-us-s-role-in-the-hidden-genocide-in-yemen.cfm
-- Yet, the term ‘genocide’ is used almost exclusively as interchangeable with the mass killing of members of a particular group. This is not what Raphael Lemkin meant when he coined the term ‘genocide.’ --
-- As the Genocide Convention was being drafted, the negotiating parties actively worked to strip the treaty of provisions that conflicted with their “national interest.” In doing so, negotiating parties actually changed the concept of genocide from that devised by Lemkin. --
https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/conflict-in-yemen
Gives a for/not for take on how genocide is determined but provides plenty for.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14623528.2024.2346405
Lengthy but discusses the canonized and non-canonization of genocide.
It would be the "democratic" way but we know they won't do it this way. I'll gladly be wrong though.
Definitely there are atrocities that are less visible than others because the media hammers them more down than others. The ones that the west has more involvement they are obviously the ones that I have more interest. Specially the ones where we send our freedom and values in form of bombs, like Afghanistan and Iraq invasion with the participation of the "leader" of my country
Other world leaders? again, the US is the so called the leader of the free world, so he is more based under my scrutiny. Xi Jinping and Putin will not receive as much criticism because I tend not to criticize what is obviously in front of my eyes. The same I can say about Trump. And I don't consider the leaders of my country a world leader but I could bore you to dead with it, but the forum is not interested and frankly, this is the US elections. What do you want me to talk about it?
Again, I had been hammered in the news about the israel -palestine conflict. I still have images from the first intifada when I was around 6 years old seeing kids and teenagers throwing stones against people armed to the teeth. I guess I was instantly brainwashed
Thanks for links. I doubt I will read them, because I think it will be a rabbit whole of semantics that I am not willing to lose my time on. Just the first sentence on the first questions on the first link says
Sure, we can revisit the concept of chair and table if we want. with this premises, everything is allowed. we can call genocide gerbils killing other gerbils and coincidentally they were with brown fur.
You want to equate the ideology under what is happening Gaza with what is happening with Yemen? feel free. I will disagree everyday and we will not convince each other. You want to equate what is happening in Yemen and Gaza as terrible conflict where human lives are lost as an equal tragedy? we will probably agree everyday. In the end, an innocent life has the same value doesn't matter under the ideology under it is lost. That Yemen should get as much attention than Gaza and is unfair? we will probably agree everyday
But I am talking about US politics, in a US politics thread about external US policy and how Biden treated Gaza conflict (and WB and now Lebanon) And my opinion is that he participated in a genocide, breaking international law and with US taxpayers and votes. Whatever US does good or bad in Yemen (lot of bad) is irrelevant on what Biden had being doing in Israel. Whatever you want to make use of the Yemen conflict to make me feel guilty that I don't voice it out as much so I should shut up on the israel conflict is a pathetic argument and It is just pure whataboutism
Last edited:
Fair play. In some viewpoints it may just be picking a particular issue over many others, but to each their own.
Don't get me wrong, the main goal is that Trump doesn't win, but Biden should never be free of criticism and in a unicorn and rainbow land, I rather prefer neither of them will be POTUS as a senile, pathetic plagiarist that supports genocide should never be an option for office. Seems like now might be possible and the one that comes might be worse. But that is something that needs to be seen
The policy wing/think tank of the GOP/Trump has come and said that violence will be used/legitimised against the left if they aren't allowed to just implement their plans or fight the immunity ruling. The other side is running a corpse for president and still debating the legal definition of genocide. Sometimes I truly hate politics.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity I suppose, but if the Dems even remotely considered Harris seriously then they're fecking idiots. She might be literally the only Dem who would do worse than Biden right now.
The answer is easy which is pick Michelle Obama
Like Republicans most Democrats don’t give a shit about policy so they might as well go pure vibes.
Like Republicans most Democrats don’t give a shit about policy so they might as well go pure vibes.
You honestly can't see what a cave in to 'Biden's too old durrrr' it would be to replace him?
It doesn't matter who it's with or their quality but if they replaced Biden then all you'd get is everyone on the fence about him (age, Israel, whatever creates apathy or anger) not bothering to vote because they're just 'over' the Democrats being crap and making weak, crap decisions so you'd have really low Dem and independent turnout and that would hand it on a silver platter to Trump.
. @MrMarcello
I think I might have posted this earlier, about Yemen.
There's a lot of similarities and differences here.
Similarities:
1. Supported by the US with diplomacy, weapons deals, and direct military support
2. Opposed by the left of the Democratic party (Bernie sponsored multiple bills to end assistance to Saudi, one of them passes the House and Senate)
3. Supported by the actual power in both parties (McConnell tried to block that Yemen bill, Trump eventually vetoed it though it had significant GOP support. Don't need to delve into Biden-Israel here)
4. Opposed by independent left media and activists (The Intercept did a lot of Yemen reporting and has been doing a lot of Gaza reporting, same with Jacobin, etc.). A lot of the names are common between the two causes.
Differences:
1. Opposing helping Saudi was a more mainstream position. As I mentioned, the bill was sponsored by Bernie... it was co-sponsored by a GOP senator. And gained a significant minority of GOP support. Plus the support of the majority of the House and Senate - across both parties - in 2019.
On the other hand, wholeheartedly supporting Israel is a massive bipartisan affair, with a dozen House Dems, less than five senate Dems, and one House Republican opposed.
2. The nature of the support - the US sold arms to Saudi, it gives aid to Israel.
3. The US as the sole diplomatic supporter of Israel in multiple Security Council votes.
4. The discourse around it - nobody opposing the Saudi intervention was accused of Islamophobia or being anti-Arab. Indeed, Tlaib and Omar, the two most prominent American Muslim politicians, both opposed the war in Yemen and got no pushback for that position. Support for Israel is loudly proclaimed by every politician and every media source. Every newly elected Congressman goes on a trip there. Support for Saudi is quiet and hidden.
So, in summary,
I don't think it's fair to say people care about one and not the other. It's often the exact same people who cared about Yemen, who now care about Gaza. And the reason for the difference in intensity can mostly be explained by how Israel vs Saudi supporters behave, and the nature of the US-Israel relationship.
e- compare the reaction to Israel killing a Palestinian-American journalist (absolutely zero diplomatic response, no investigation) to the inadequate reaction to Saudi killing a Saudi-American journalist (two year diplomatic freeze). These are qualitatively different relationships.
I think I might have posted this earlier, about Yemen.
There's a lot of similarities and differences here.
Similarities:
1. Supported by the US with diplomacy, weapons deals, and direct military support
2. Opposed by the left of the Democratic party (Bernie sponsored multiple bills to end assistance to Saudi, one of them passes the House and Senate)
3. Supported by the actual power in both parties (McConnell tried to block that Yemen bill, Trump eventually vetoed it though it had significant GOP support. Don't need to delve into Biden-Israel here)
4. Opposed by independent left media and activists (The Intercept did a lot of Yemen reporting and has been doing a lot of Gaza reporting, same with Jacobin, etc.). A lot of the names are common between the two causes.
Differences:
1. Opposing helping Saudi was a more mainstream position. As I mentioned, the bill was sponsored by Bernie... it was co-sponsored by a GOP senator. And gained a significant minority of GOP support. Plus the support of the majority of the House and Senate - across both parties - in 2019.
On the other hand, wholeheartedly supporting Israel is a massive bipartisan affair, with a dozen House Dems, less than five senate Dems, and one House Republican opposed.
2. The nature of the support - the US sold arms to Saudi, it gives aid to Israel.
3. The US as the sole diplomatic supporter of Israel in multiple Security Council votes.
4. The discourse around it - nobody opposing the Saudi intervention was accused of Islamophobia or being anti-Arab. Indeed, Tlaib and Omar, the two most prominent American Muslim politicians, both opposed the war in Yemen and got no pushback for that position. Support for Israel is loudly proclaimed by every politician and every media source. Every newly elected Congressman goes on a trip there. Support for Saudi is quiet and hidden.
So, in summary,
I don't think it's fair to say people care about one and not the other. It's often the exact same people who cared about Yemen, who now care about Gaza. And the reason for the difference in intensity can mostly be explained by how Israel vs Saudi supporters behave, and the nature of the US-Israel relationship.
e- compare the reaction to Israel killing a Palestinian-American journalist (absolutely zero diplomatic response, no investigation) to the inadequate reaction to Saudi killing a Saudi-American journalist (two year diplomatic freeze). These are qualitatively different relationships.
Last edited:
Another thing to factor in is from a campaign finance point of view, Harris is a lot more straightforward than another candidate.
That will be the excuse to default to her, but it still wouldn't address the issue that she can't win. People generally don't care for her and Trump would simply run an incredibly racist campaign en route to a landslide.
To people not having experienced it before in political campaigns, what we have seen during the last week is a proper meltdown.
What experienced politicians/campaign managers do in this kind of situation is go full PR and spin the situation to another one that works in their favor. The fact that they haven't done that is appaling and points out to both terrible incompetence at their jobs and extreme obliviousness regarding how serious the issue was.
I'd say that being sure (A) your candidate to the presidency is ready for a debate and (B) having a contingency plan/explanation/spin strategy just in case he isn't are the most basic of the basic regarding campaigning. Which is something this staff does rationally every other year.
What experienced politicians/campaign managers do in this kind of situation is go full PR and spin the situation to another one that works in their favor. The fact that they haven't done that is appaling and points out to both terrible incompetence at their jobs and extreme obliviousness regarding how serious the issue was.
I'd say that being sure (A) your candidate to the presidency is ready for a debate and (B) having a contingency plan/explanation/spin strategy just in case he isn't are the most basic of the basic regarding campaigning. Which is something this staff does rationally every other year.
What makes you think they don't prepare for this? They've done the Q an A in full, even the earpieces are supposed to help him out with facts.
The problem isn't preparation, there's only that much you can do when the subject is senile. Forgot about rehearsing and preparations, the man can't even read teleprompter. I don't even think the best laid plans will work when Biden forgots what he says in the morning let alone what he rehearsed weeks ago
Such a sad state that American Politics has come to such a nadir of presenting a horror show to the whole world to see.
You either got a despotic mad man or a senile puppet. Choose your poison
To think this sociopathic crook actually got a point and may well be on his way to the WH for the second time is terrifying.
What a disaster of a campaign and a terrible state of affairs when it comes to US politics.
I don't really understand how people have reasoned themselves into the position that "replacing a historically unpopular president who is on track to lose" is bad.
You can speculate about low Dem and independent turnout if democrats are 'weak' or something but it requires a lot of leaps. What requires less leaps is assuming low Dem and independent turnout when huge numbers in both groups have repeatedly and loudly proclaimed in poll after poll that they don't want Biden to be the candidate or the president.
Last edited:
Its the only shot the Dems have, Biden can't turn this around.
Will there be questions why they didn't admit it earlier? Yes, and sure, that looks bad.
Way less bad than allowing Biden to be nominee though, that just comes across as totally tone deaf to the situation.
I just find this to be a strange way to think. Caving in to 'Biden's too old durrrr'.
Imagine if it came out that Biden killed 30 dogs back in the 1970s,.and 80% of the population goes "eww we don't want a guy who killed 80 dogs as president." Presumably no one would characterize replacing him as "caving in to'eww Biden kills dogs durr'."
Imagine if it came out that Biden killed 30 dogs back in the 1970s,.and 80% of the population goes "eww we don't want a guy who killed 80 dogs as president." Presumably no one would characterize replacing him as "caving in to'eww Biden kills dogs durr'."
Last edited:
Given that these numbers reflect a situation where Harris has had no media exposure what so ever over the past two years - that is pretty good.
It's not a cave in to some internet meme that he's too old.
It would be acknowledging the fact that he's too fecking old and in no way whatsoever fit to be president.
She has stated that she has no intention of running. That said, at what point is there an obligation to run? if you were the only one who was polled to beat Trump and stop him getting a 2nd term.
The answer is surely simple: Dwayne Johnson.
Vin Diesel as his VP. Let's go!
The hypothetical polls should be ignored. Dees Nuts was polling 10% in 2016, which goes to show you can drop just about any name into a polling question and they will do moderately well based on name recognition. The likes of Michelle Obama, Sheryl Sandberg, and a few others routinely get name dropped because they have allies in media who want to see them run, despite the fact that they themselves are both unqualified and uninterested in anything to do with politics.