No amount of circling the wagons after the primaries will make an unpopular candidate palatable to an apathetic voting base.
The point of agitating now is to prevent an establishment candidate from taking the nomination to begin with or to force the establishment to embrace populist positions and control the campaign narrative.
Because reactionary movements offer an alternative explanation to systemic failures that are easier than challenging systemic forces that create them
Most people can see that their choices result in little to no change without anyone having to point to it, and will sit out elections regardless.
Democrats refusing to address that apathy is the problem, not people making it known.
No, the point is to agitate you against an establishment that wants to prevent you from having a better choice.
Liberals who are passionately defending lesser evil electoralism before primaries have even started are either idiots in denial or moderates who don’t want to talk about why their party is nearly as unpopular as Trump.
“All Cops Are Bastards” doesnt mean they cant be nice to you, sometimes.
I thought i was on c/shitposting for a second
the US Media fails to act critically, but that action is not politically based, it’s corporate based
Ohhhhh, watch your step there bud, you might accidently step in some actual political theory there
If the story were “US Politicians lie about Gaza”, that’s fine, that’s talking about the actions of the US Political sphere.
This story is “US Media lies about Gaza” which is the failure of the US Media
LMAO those are the actual two parts of this exact story.
by repeating US official statements as fact
The headline isnt “US media reported the time from clocks later discovered to be broken”, it’s “US media reports innocence of serial killer after his mom tells them that he’s totally innocent”
The story is about US Media failing to accurately cover Israel’s attack on a hospital
by failing to scrutinize official accounting by US officials
You keep leaving that pretty crucial piece out there kid. The larger story is about how US media is in bed with US state department interests - a relationship with an actual-fucking-textbook term: manufacturing consent
And the reason why it’s important to continue making the problem known here is tbe same reason it was important for activists to show up to Harris/Biden rallies in 2023 protesting US complicity on Gaza. It’s the reason the tide has turned so hard that you have to sit here and pretend like there’s some procedural reason to cut Israel out of the US political conversation instead of just ignoring it entirely.
God save you and the DNC for 2028, because noone else will.
We certainly are intervening, though. If we “weren’t intervening” in Gaza in the same way we “aren’t intervening” in Ukraine, this topic of conversation would be a lot less contentious.
Let’s not split hairs here, Jordan. They’re reporting on how US media reports on official White House accounting of international affairs, not the affairs themselves. US political actors (both US media and actual White House officials) are the actual subjects of this story, not Israel.
You can complain all you want about the white house being pestered to give their accounting of events in Gaza at all, but it becomes US politics the moment they’re actively engaging in the discussion and the US media is centering them in their coverage. It’s certainly unflattering - i sympathize with why you might be frustrated by the topic, especially after how 2024 went and especially as we prepare for a 2028 campaign.
Israel and Gaza are losing topics for democrats - that much is abundantly clear.
In the end though, the real problem is, there is no such thing as “International Law”. It’s mealy mouthed guideline at best.
Especially when the only people capable of intervening are determined to do anything but mouth meaningless platitudes, such as “Israel has a right to defend itself”, and “Israel has a right to exist”
Lmao, coverage of what, Jordan? Whose statements are they reporting on?
Certainly not White House officials, that would be hard to claim irrelevant to US politics
Everyone up in arms over this clearly just didnt grow up with ren and stimpy cartoons.
This is beautiful
On the other hand, that comm is like a spam folder for political bullshit. It’s all about “Chuck Schumer SLAMS Trump” or “What AOC Did At The Democrat Dinner Will Shock You!”
No disagreement that it’s a trash community with trash content, but it might be worth asking if the community is shit because the moderator is making it shit
“Israel has a right to exist” and “Israel has a right to defend itself.”
A huge part of the problem is that both of those statements lack any specificity - we can’t even have the conversation about whether any given state has some abstract ‘right’ to exist of defend itself if we don’t really have an agreed definition of what ‘Israel’ or a ‘state’ is, what ‘existence’ encompasses, and what limits to the definition of ‘defense’ we are operating under. Are we talking about Israel the geographic region, or the Jewish diaspora? Are we talking about a democratic state with religious and ethnic equality, or an apartheid two-class system of oppression?
And that lack of specificity is almost the entire strategy of the democratic establishment and their position on the topic, and why the DNC consultant class and (apparently) smalltime internet forum moderators would rather dismiss all attempts of having that discussion
Those are direct quotes from the second article listed that were removed (and still appear to be removed) in the OP for the stated “”“not us politics”“” reason, you unwashed bunghole.
Jesus fuck you’re dense.
“A U.S. official with knowledge of American intelligence says Hamas has a command node under the Al-Shifa hospital…”
“Like CNN, NBC News and ABC News similarly quoted White House officials claiming that Hamas had infiltrated hospitals, including Al-Shifa.”
“Western establishment media’s reliance on official assertions helped normalize what should have been unthinkable.”
The irony of your editorializing in your moderation decisions would be far more entertaining to me if the reasoning for it weren’t so fucking transparent.
- US Media Coverage of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza*
That second one is quite literally about US political news coverage. It’s in the fucking headline jackass.
The most you can say about democrats is that they passively object to fascist ideology, but they never do more than throw procedural obstructions to fascist momentum and legitimize reactionary grievances by repeatedly affirming xenophobic anxieties about immigrants and minorities.
The reason leftists argue that both parties operate under the same fascist framework is that they both prioritize a failing capitalistic system over radical socialist reform, and so will (either by choice or because trying to preserve failing capitalist systems leaves them without a choice) bend to reactionary populism and abandon socialist populism.
“democrats are better than republicans because they oppose fascism” is really only true if you ignore the common consensus among political theorists that fascism is the end product of deteriorating material conditions and the tendency of capitalist systems toward self-preservation. So long as democrats deny the demand for popular socialist reform, they are nothing more than the moderate wing of the same fascist uni-party. To be truly oppositional to fascism they need to address the contradictions in their own political framework, or else be constantly pulled rightward by the same reactionary forces acting on the right.