The Biden Presidency

[Sky1981]

There's a saying here that "kiamat" or "end of days" happens when Israel and Palestine made peace.

Religious people, some of them believe that it's an eternal war between the Abraham religion

I dont think I'll ever see an everlasting peace in our lifetime. Even a perfectly divided 2 state solution would only buy time, once the oppressed has recover they they'll want what's theirs. The Israel knew that and they're at the point of no return now.

 

[4bars]

There's a saying here that "kiamat" or "end of days" happens when Israel and Palestine made peace.

Religious people, some of them believe that it's an eternal war between the Abraham religion

I dont think I'll ever see an everlasting peace in our lifetime. Even a perfectly divided 2 state solution would only buy time, once the oppressed has recover they they'll want what's theirs. The Israel knew that and they're at the point of no return now.

I think we will see it in 10 - 20 years. will be peace, trust me. Israel will occupy all the territory and thats the end of all

 

[The Corinthian]

If you're asking why the Gazan situation isn't complicated, nuanced or difficult, I'm not really sure what to say.

If you're asking explicitly about the current Israeli actions, off the top of my head here are things that can hold up a ceasefire:
1. Hamas is refusing a ceasefire under current terms
2. There are still hostages that Hamas will not release in exchange for a ceasefire, including non-Israelis
3. Despite what we'd all like, Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters, and he risks going to jail when the war ends

That's just 3 things.

I think what most people would like is a unilateral ceasefire from Israel. Ie, just stop. But, that is complicated, difficult given the actors involved and basically is a kill order on hostages.

Even defining it as a genocide is going to a take a panel of legal experts months if not years to determine.

None of it is simple.

1&2 is just regurgitated nonsense, something you’ve been doing across a few threads and for quite some time.

Hamas have agreed to return the hostages with a permanent ceasefire. Why would that means it’s a kill order is Israel stopped? You’re not making any sense here at all.

And yes it’s a genocide. How do you think genocides work? There’s nothing complicated or difficult about this conflict or the situation in general. Israel has brutally oppressed an indigenous people for decades and is now committing genocide against them.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

"Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters and he risks going to jail when the war ends."

When's that stopped the U.S. from doing anything?

 

[Beachryan]

1&2 is just regurgitated nonsense, something you’ve been doing across a few threads and for quite some time.

Hamas have agreed to return the hostages with a permanent ceasefire. Why would that means it’s a kill order is Israel stopped? You’re not making any sense here at all.

And yes it’s a genocide. How do you think genocides work? There’s nothing complicated or difficult about this conflict or the situation in general. Israel has brutally oppressed an indigenous people for decades and is now committing genocide against them.

Great, if as you say those 2 points are resolved, than today's ceasefire talks should be successful, and we can start the hard part - what comes next.

Listen, this is a forum, populated by people that don't necessarily have the same views as you, no matter how strongly you hold them. If anyone wants to actually debate, it can't take the form of pure tribalism - assuming that your side is simply so correct that the others must be idiots or worse. I do not assume that. I've learned plenty from posts on this issue. I've read links that have been posted, listened to countless sources from both sides and tried to form an opinion based on all of that. If all you want from a 'discussion' on the internet is people agreeing with you and patting you on the back for being in line with similar views, that's fine, but not how I've been taught to engage.

For example, this is what I'm reading on the Guardian:
“We wait to see whether, in effect, they can take yes for an answer on the ceasefire and release of hostages,” Blinken said late Friday. The reality in this moment is the only thing standing between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas.”

And

“Netanyahu was the obstructionist of all previous rounds of dialogue … and it is clear that he still is,” said senior Hamas official Hossam Badran.

Those are quotes, from two sides that are right now sitting at the table. There is a phrase I've heard recently that I really like: BSAS. It's reserved for situations like this one, and stands for 'both sides are sh*t'. Do I trust the US on this? No. Do I trust Hamas more? Absolutely not.

Anyway, I'm sure this will dismissed as zionist, or democrat (shudder, what an insult) or liberal or western or who knows. But if you don't want anyone disagreeing with you, then just go back to the actual thread on the topic, which is disagreement free.

 

[Beachryan]

"Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters and he risks going to jail when the war ends."

When's that stopped the U.S. from doing anything?

Nothing, but I was discussing the reality of a ceasefire. Which, unfortuantely, is very much reliant on Netanyahu changing. Hence. Complicated.

 

[Beachryan]

.

Wow, what a strong point. Admitting that Isreal's actions following October 7th have been worse than I'd imagined. Acknowledging I was wrong. I guess, you win the internet today? Congrats!

 

[Smores]

Are people here actually suggesting if Hamas just say we surrender it's all over? Seemingly the same people who are constantly saying genocide is complicated. People can't be that blind and naive surely.

 

[Simbo]

Are people here actually suggesting if Hamas just say we surrender it's all over? Seemingly the same people who are constantly saying genocide is complicated. People can't be that blind and naive surely.

What would happen if Hamas surrenders?

 

[Boycott]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The complete opposite of this tweet has happened.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

https://abcnews.go.com/US/columbia-...palestinian-discrimination/story?id=109901272

 

[SirAF]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/politics/biden-bombs-israel.html

The message was not getting through. Not through the phone calls or the emissaries or the public statements or the joint committee meetings. And so, frustrated that he was being ignored, President Biden chose a more dramatic way of making himself clear to Israeli leaders. He stopped sending the bombs.

Mr. Biden’s decision to pause the delivery of 3,500 bombs to Israel was meant to convey a powerful signal that his patience has limits. While insisting that his support for the Jewish state remains “ironclad,” Mr. Biden for the first time since the Gaza war erupted last fall opted to use his power as Israel’s chief arms supplier to demonstrate his discontent.

Do you think this decision is going to positively affect Biden's standing among the pro-Palestine crowd - or will it just lead to both parties being pissed? Thus harming him even more before the election?

 

[Raoul]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/politics/biden-bombs-israel.html




Do you think this decision is going to positively affect Biden's standing among the pro-Palestine crowd - or will it just lead to both parties being pissed? Thus harming him even more before the election?

It may stabilize things a bit with them, but there will always be some who either don't vote or vote against him based on what has already transpired.

 

[Sky1981]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/politics/biden-bombs-israel.html




Do you think this decision is going to positively affect Biden's standing among the pro-Palestine crowd - or will it just lead to both parties being pissed? Thus harming him even more before the election?

It doesnt. Just pep talk trying to appease some portion of his voters.

The bombs arent necessary for Israel to do their bidding. It's not as if they're up against high tech Iran or Russia. They're butchering civilians who can't fight back.

This is just the big bully telling everyone to calm down while holding the bullied for his buddy to keep on pouncing

 

[VorZakone]

How Joe Biden Sabotaged the ‘Rules-Based Order’

By denying that Israel has violated international humanitarian law in Gaza, Washington is discrediting itself and the order that it claims to uphold.

The U.S. claim that there is a rules-based order—and that Washington is its ultimate guarantor—is now being questioned widely to a fundamental degree. When these norms are being unapologetically broken, and those breaks go unacknowledged—alongside steadfast U.S. military support for Israel—it has a tremendous impact on U.S. partners and allies worldwide.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/10/biden-israel-gaza-arms-rules-based-order/

 

[Raoul]

How Joe Biden Sabotaged the ‘Rules-Based Order’


https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/10/biden-israel-gaza-arms-rules-based-order/

He clearly missed the Iraq War and any number of other interventions before that.

 

[VorZakone]

He clearly missed the Iraq War and any number of other interventions before that.

He mentions Iraq.

Yet there is something unique and disturbing about this moment. When the U.S. army invaded Iraq in 2003, for example, it did so claiming that an evil tyrant (Saddam Hussein) had to be stopped, and it put forward all kinds of legal justifications for the so-called collateral damage that the invasion caused.

By contrast, today, the United States—the proclaimed upholder of the rules-based order—is not only defending and backing Israel. It’s also denying that any infringements are even taking place.

 

[Raoul]

He mentions Iraq.

His headline then doesn't really match what he's saying. The rules based order also has historically not applied to superpowers. Not just the US, but the later years of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and all the way through Ukraine. At the end of the day its just a concept that allows larger states to do what they want while smaller states are constrained to playing closer to the rules.

 

[VorZakone]

His headline then doesn't really match what he's saying. The rules based order also has historically not applied to superpowers. Not just the US, but the later years of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and all the way through Ukraine. At the end of the day its just a concept that allows larger states to do what they want while smaller states are constrained to playing closer to the rules.

His point is that when the US comes knocking for help on certain issues or wants to achieve a particular policy goal, it may encounter increasing resistance from other countries to co-operate.

At some point, there will be another crisis—in the Middle East, or somewhere else—about territory, climate change, or other issues. When those crises hit, Washington will need more, not fewer, mechanisms for de-escalation and mediation, because the alternatives are simply even worse than we can imagine.

Unfortunately, if the U.S. government does not engage in a massive course correction soon, there won’t be a rules-based order for it to invoke or rely on, because no one will take Washington seriously—and why should they?

 

[Raoul]

His point is that when the US comes knocking for help on certain issues or wants to achieve a particular policy goal, it may encounter increasing resistance from other countries to co-operate.

Its a valid point to make, but I don't think it will actually play out that way. European states will almost always side with the US on foreign policy given the NATO connection, and regional ME states like Saudi, UAE, Jordan, Qatar, will generally be amenable to US overtures. The Abraham accords and the latest Israel-Gulf State partnership proposal that got torpedoed by Hamas being recent examples. Most of these countries will behave in a manner that suits their economic and political interests.

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sweet Square]

Sounds like a certain ex president

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[RedSky]

What happens if Biden or Trump wins and dies during their term? Does the VP take over? Or does another election occur?

 

[nimic]

What happens if Biden or Trump wins and dies during their term? Does the VP take over? Or does another election occur?

Vice President becomes President. I am not aware of any mechanism that can trigger a new election.

 

[RedSky]

Vice President becomes President. I am not aware of any mechanism that can trigger a new election.

So I suppose if you're a Democrat you might be looking at the Dems VP candidate as much as Biden. Who lets face it, could easily fall over and die any day.

It's a horrible choice for any American with a conscience though. Trump or Biden, urgh.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is a pretty weird tweet. Of course Americans are paying the tariffs, that's how tariffs work. What the econ student would tell you is that the actual cost, rather than just the payments, is split between Chinese exporters and American importers. The econ student would also tell you that it's very likely a net loss for the world, certainly a loss for China, and unless China retaliates probably a plus for the US.

 

[neverdie]

Sounds like a certain ex president

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Trump's rally in New Jersey the other day was highlighted with claims regarding the motor industry being offshored to Mexico via Chinese capital. It's in direct response to that, which is why it sounds very similar.

 

[Red in STL]

Vice President becomes President. I am not aware of any mechanism that can trigger a new election.

The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives, president pro tempore of the Senate, and then Cabinet secretaries, depending on eligibility.

 

[Sweet Square]

Trump's rally in New Jersey the other day was highlighted with claims regarding the motor industry being offshored to Mexico via Chinese capital. It's in direct response to that, which is why it sounds very similar.

Policy on China and immigration are two of the biggest lasting legacies of the first Trump presidency.

 

[berbatrick]

About Biden's polling and its relation with Is/Pal:
Overall, I'm not sure it's a big factor beccause there aren't many Muslims, and young people don't like to vote, and those who do can be browbeaten about fascism, etc.
Another marginal effect is that it could hurt him with committed Zionists who think he's not supportive enough.

But the big effect might just be among those subruban voters who are generally patriotic, maybe without strong feelings on this either way, who see a never-ending news item where the president looks weak, the antifa thugs look angry, and there is a general spread of chaos...exactly the opposite of the 2020 Biden message, old steady hand at the wheel, don't worry about anything!

 

[Red in STL]

Policy on China and immigration are two of the biggest lasting legacies of the first Trump presidency.

The biggest lasting legacy from Trump's time are the tax cuts, and during the next term the loudest will be the squeals from regular folks when they expire whict the richest folks will still have theirs

 

[neverdie]

Policy on China and immigration are two of the biggest lasting legacies of the first Trump presidency.

Yep. He kept the tariffs and doubled down on border politics. Also, CHIPS is a direct legacy of the Trump administration insofar as it was about securing American logistics against Chinese insecurity issues (Taiwan and other places). It is "establishment" orthodox, the various economic policies the two (Biden and Trump) advertise. There is scant difference between them with some exceptions. Biden appears more pro-union (which is smart) and also less about tax cuts for the very, very wealthy. Trump is still banging on about tax-cuts (the 7 trillion cuts he made when he was president) and would, apparently, do it again.

If you're looking for distance between the two candidates domestically, that's about as much as I can find (to say "vote Biden").

 

[berbatrick]

There have been SO many points in this Israel-Gaza war where Biden had the pretext to pull support. Not talking about 10k Palestinian kids because we know the value of their "lives" - claiming you're pulling support for humanitarian reasons wouldn't be good for Biden's election prospects, so I understand.

The recent ones off the top of my head were that WCK bombing where Official DC actually got slightly concerned because a personal friend was suffering, there was the UNSC recognition vote, there is this Rafah offensive, and now there's the Criminal Court warrant. If, as some delusional stans say, Biden's support of Israel was strategic (to prevent further slaughter), he could have used any of these pretexts to pull support, and when Bibi refused, invoked something like "America First" - our money, our diplomacy, our weapons = our rules. This would have satisfied the suburban moderates who otherwise support the slaughter of Palestinians.

The fact that he didn't - along with his decades-long unequivocal and frankly alarming statements about what Israel means to him - shows his support is sincere and personal. And let's not pretend we didn't know exactly how the Biden Administration would react to this warrant - deep down, we all understand this.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[The Corinthian]

There have been SO many points in this Israel-Gaza war where Biden had the pretext to pull support. Not talking about 10k Palestinian kids because we know the value of their "lives" - claiming you're pulling support for humanitarian reasons wouldn't be good for Biden's election prospects, so I understand.

The recent ones off the top of my head were that WCK bombing where Official DC actually got slightly concerned because a personal friend was suffering, there was the UNSC recognition vote, there is this Rafah offensive, and now there's the Criminal Court warrant. If, as some delusional stans say, Biden's support of Israel was strategic (to prevent further slaughter), he could have used any of these pretexts to pull support, and when Bibi refused, invoked something like "America First" - our money, our diplomacy, our weapons = our rules. This would have satisfied the suburban moderates who otherwise support the slaughter of Palestinians.

The fact that he didn't - along with his decades-long unequivocal and frankly alarming statements about what Israel means to him - shows his support is sincere and personal. And let's not pretend we didn't know exactly how the Biden Administration would react to this warrant - deep down, we all understand this.

He ideologically supports Israel. He's no different to Bibi in my eyes.