518

A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.

Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.

The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.

The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

So then what take should I have to prevent Trump from winning? Specifics. You know what works, tell us. So far I’ve got:

You should first accept that based on all the information we have currently, Biden isn't viable as a candidate, and that by continuing to promote the position that Biden is the only option when they obviously aren't even an option at this point.

So step one: Stop gaslighting people.

People know when they are being lied to, and they especially know when they are being lied to by some one who has fully deluded themselves into thinking they know whats going on. Its what you are doing here with the false choice dichotomy you continuously try to draw.

Step two: Stop supporting a failed strategy.

Biden can be moved, and the DNC can and will swap him out if its obvious he can't win. We need to show that this candidate can't win now by audibly making it clear they don't have enough support to win the election. This means ceasing to engage in apologetic for Biden. Put your criticisms where they belong: at the feet of Joe Biden and the DNC. They are the ones failing to do the work necessary this election cycle and if you think they aren't listening, you are wrong. They are. They hear you here and elsewhere. You need to connect the strategy of "Blue-No-Matter-Who" to exactly why Biden is shaping up to lose this election whole cloth. Biden won 2020 because he had to come get progressive voters, black voters, youth voters. He did so through surrogates and through his platform. In 2020 Biden basically did a lift and shift of Bernies entire suite of platform issues. He needed to do so to get Bernies voters to come to him. By relinquishing your consent and getting nothing in return, you are setting Biden up for failure. Stop promoting this approach to voting. It does not work. It will lose us the election.

Step Three: If you seek alternatives, you should propose them.

You seem like clever folk. Why don't you come up with some alternatives to Biden you find acceptable and which you think could be palatable to a broader audience. Present them here. We can have a conversation about them.

We only entered the reformed primary system ~40 years ago. Its completely reasonable to expect that if Biden steps back as candidate, we can decide the entire thing at the convention. Its how the primaries have worked in this country for the majority of its history. Wilding et al. vs. DNC Services Corporation et al. 2017: The DNC’s choice of how to conduct its presidential nominating process is protected by the First Amendment, which means they can do what-ever the fuck they want to decide a candidate. They could hold a potato sack race if they so choose. There is no requirement that they regard their own charter in this manner.

You seem to want to have an option before recognizing that the strategy you are committed to can't win. That's a personal preference of yours. And so if that's your preference, you should propose some alternatives. I don't feel the need to have an alternative in place once I recognize that the strategy I've selected doesn't work. I personally recognize the importance of 'empty space' ; that if something can-not work, I recognize the importance of abandoning a failed approach as-soon-as-possible to create room for another option to exist. Its not about knowing what I'll do instead, its about creating the space for another option to exist.

To put it into metaphor, you are basically arguing that if I have an abusive boyfriend/ girlfriend/ partner, someone its just not going to work out with, I shouldn't break up with them before I know who my next partner will be.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

You should first accept that based on all the information we have currently, Biden isn't viable as a candidate, and that by continuing to promote the position that Biden is the only option when they obviously aren't even an option at this point.

This is pure conjecture. You have not provided any viable alternative. Once you do that we can discuss other options and if Biden is actually less viable.

Can you point to a single misleading or inaccurate statement I've made about Joe Biden or the Democrats? Where have I ignored criticism? Everything else you say is based on this false and misleading premise that you've created and continuously cycle back to. You're claiming that my strategy is flawed without providing evidence of alternatives. It's amusing that you've written the same thing this many times to avoid backing up your claim but I think I'm good for now. You're just going to keep playing games. Luckily it's pretty obvious at this point.

See you later!

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Its not a false premise whatsoever that Biden will not be the next president. Its the constant theme in all the data we have available to us on the matter.

First approval polls:

On this date of Trumps presidency, he was dick deep in covid and maybe the most uncertain period of time in recent history.

Even with all that, he had five points on Biden: 42.6 to 37.8. Trump remained a one term president.

Same date of George H.W. Bush's presidency, Bush had 3 points on Biden, at 40.

Jimmy Carter, another one term president. 40.7 on today's date in his presidency.

Literally every single one term President of the last 60 years was polling higher than Joe Biden is currently polling, at this exact point in their presidency.

Presidents that won a second term? ALL of them were beating Bidens currently approval by 10 points or better on this date of their presidency. And more importantly, their polling percentage over time was rising, as in, going up and to the right. Bidens polling isn't going up and to the right. Its going down. He's not gaining traction, he's losing it.

Now onto head to head polls:

Biden over-polls by about 4%, Trump under-polls by about 8% when compared to real election results:

How is Biden polling in a head to head? He's losing to Trump, and has been losing to Trump in head to head polling for over 400 days. Out of the last 50 polls, Biden has lost 47 of them in a head to head with Trump. Thats not accounting for differential sampling error. If you account for the typical pattern of sampling error we would associate with a Biden v Trump head to head, Biden has won precisely 0 polls against Trump in the last 400 days.

If the election were tomorrow, it wouldn't even be close. Trump would win in a blow out.

You need to pull your head out of the sand.

this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
518 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
1972 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS