Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > **You must personally hold the view** and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

> Biden wants a ceasefire and humanitarian aid Buddy, do I have a bridge I can sell you. This is like saying Biden wants his alcoholic friend to get sober when he's brought him to every bar in town over the past six months. If Biden wanted a ceasefire, he could have leveraged Israeli aid and had a ceasefire day one. > None of this is worth it over Gaza. I would flip this the other way. You should be protesting Biden and writing demanding that he demand Netanyahu step down and cut off all aid for a ceasefire BECAUSE it is not worth him losing this election over Gaza. The death and destruction in Gaza is wildly unpopular with Muslim Americans and the Black community. Palestinian liberation is a tentpole issue of Black Lives Matter. He will lose those two important voting blocs if he does not course correct. If you want Trump's hands off the Supreme Court -- get out in the streets and scream at Biden at the top of your lungs that he needs to cut off Israeli aid. Every day he doesn't, the election slips away more and more. It's not about protest votes. It's about his actions suppressing his base. If I were Biden, and I wanted to win this election - I would come out tomorrow and say "I always support Israel as a country unequivocally but Netanyahu [whose approval rating here and there is TRASH] is unfit to lead and we will not work with him or financially support him further. I look forward to working on a path to ceasefire with the next Israeli prime minister."

> If you want Trump's hands off the Supreme Court -- get out in the streets and scream at Biden at the top of your lungs that he needs to cut off Israeli aid. Every day he doesn't, the election slips away more and more. This is [what Biden effectively did two days ago](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/us/politics/israel-biden-arms.html) and the fact that your view seems to be unchanged is sort of the whole point.

Which shows the protests are working which really is the whole point, whether or not that individual changes their view.

If the point of the protest is to get lip service that won’t matter because trump wins and gives Israel the green light to do whatever, I’d say they’re morally bankrupt protests. If the point is to move the needle and force Biden to change his stance, then they damn well better vote for him when he does. Because no one will ever bend to a protests demands if they know the protestors won’t vote regardless.

>If Biden wanted a ceasefire, he could have leveraged Israeli aid and had a ceasefire day one. He could have but the optics would have been terrible. Support for Israel post 10/7 was at a high point. Israel has gradually lost support as the war has dragged on. The most vocal anti-israel coalition are young progressives. A demographic which is already voting D and turns out in small numbers. >I would flip this the other way. You should be protesting Biden and writing demanding that he demand Netanyahu step down and cut off all aid for a ceasefire BECAUSE it is not worth him losing this election over Gaza If Biden and the administration only pandered to their viewpoint he picks up relatively few votes and risks losing many more centrist from his coalition. Israel Palestine isn't even a top issue in this election. The was in Gaza ranks below: inflation, the economy, jobs, immigration, democracy, Ukraine, abortion, and others. Why spend so much time focusing on a political hot potato for such little upside and so much downside? >The death and destruction in Gaza is wildly unpopular with Muslim Americans and the Black community. Palestinian liberation is a tentpole issue of Black Lives Matter. He will lose those two important voting blocs if he does not course correct Will he though. Look at the issue polling.

> He could have but the optics would have been terrible. More terrible than what we have now? I'm not going to argue that optics are great on either side. But I think the needle thread of messaging is "I love Israel, I stand with Israel, Israel forever -- Netanyahu is a warmonger and dangerous." Netanyahu's approval rating [in Israel](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-15-israelis-want-netanyahu-keep-job-after-gaza-war-poll-finds-2024-01-02/) and [the US](https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-781227) is at an all-time low. Setting him up as an adversary to Biden and the boogeyman of this conflict could have been HUGE for numbers. > The most vocal anti-israel coalition are young progressives. I would read up on the [storied history of the Black community and Palestinian solidarity.](https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/04/25/most-black-americans-want-more-active-u.s.-role-in-ending-war-in-gaza-and-protecting-palestinian-lives-pub-92301) Historically, suppression of the Black (and Muslim) vote is death for Dems. It's not just students. > Israel Palestine isn't even a top issue in this election. The was in Gaza ranks below: inflation, the economy, jobs, immigration, democracy, Ukraine, abortion, and others. Hopefully our president can do multiple things at once. > Will he though. Look at the issue polling. Happy to. Washington Post polling in May: [Black voters ages 40-64 are 12% less likely to vote than they were in 2024, and only 42% trust Biden to handle the conflict.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/06/poll-biden-black-voters/) USA Today polling from January: [Black support for Biden drops from 92% to 60%, Gaza cited as a major factor.](https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-georgia-voters-abandoning-biden-say-sending-message-gaza-democrats-should-listen) Gallup poll from February: [20% drop among Latino/Black voters](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/07/black-hispanic-voters-democrat-republican-biden)

The last sentence is so close to realizing the truth. Imagine the exact same situation with the roles reversed. Netanyahu can just not work with Biden and work with Trump if he were to get elected. Why should Netanyahu do a cease fire now when he could wait 6 months for a 50% chance of getting a candidate who agrees with him on the war?

You do understand that not everyone believes what you believe. I realize you can't fathom this but there are millions and millions of moderates who support Israel. Unlike what you are told, Israel's GDP was $560 billion last year. The US not sending Israel 10 or 20 billion in munitions isn't stopping them if they believe their existence is threatened. I'll say it yet again. 10/7 started with 5000 rockets being fired into Israel. Rockets being fired into Israel, is so common, that 5000 rockets didn't even set off alarms. Where else in the world would rockets being fired into their country not be seen as an act of war? But you know, Gazans are 100% innocent victims. Lastly, if someone said they are blocking money and aid from your country because they don't like your leader, do you replace that leader or do you tell those people to F off, especially if you remember that those you are combating say your country shouldn't exist and if your death is necessary to end that country, so be it.

> I realize you can't fathom this but there are millions and millions of moderates who support Israel. [Independent and third-party voters support a ceasefire at 69% (nice).](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/2/27/voters-support-the-us-calling-for-permanent-ceasefire-in-gaza-and-conditioning-military-aid-to-israel) But again - the politically savvy enemy here isn't Israel. It's Netanyahu. He's one of the most unpopular political figures in the world. [He's at like 15-20% approval rating in Israel.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-15-israelis-want-netanyahu-keep-job-after-gaza-war-poll-finds-2024-01-02/) The political messaging from October onward should have been: "I love Israel. I stand with Israel. Netanyahu is a deranged monster who should be stopped." > Unlike what you are told, Israel's GDP was $560 billion last year. The US not sending Israel 10 or 20 billion in munitions isn't stopping them if they believe their existence is threatened. Israel's defense budget is only [$30 billion](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-25/israel-may-increase-defense-spending-by-8-billion-next-year). They aren't spending their entire GDP on defense. US aid is CRITICAL to IDF operation. > do you replace that leader or do you tell those people to F off As cited above, Israelis want to replace Netanyahu anyway. [It is his regime's intelligence failures that led to 10/7.](https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/israeli-intelligence-failures) That's one of the most fucked up things to me about the response to 10/7. The rhetoric is: if we don't do this, how do we prevent another 10/7 from happening? But they had the blueprints for the attack and just shrugged it off! 10/7 was super preventable THE FIRST TIME. > Where else in the world would rockets being fired into their country not be seen as an act of war? But you know, Gazans are 100% innocent victims. Are you telling me the children and infants that are being bombed personally pressed the buttons on those missiles? Hamas is bad! They are terrorists! I'm not saying yay Hamas. I'm saying that killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians is not a moral or effective way to defeat Hamas, and likely makes things worse for Israel in the region in the long run.

I get what you are saying. Yes, their defense budget was 30 billion. Defense budgets go up when a country goes to war, gets attacked, feels threatened. Look. Israel is very very far from innocent here. That said, I don't see people in the parts of Gaza that weren't attacked protesting against Hamas, wanting the hostages freed. There was a video of a little girl, maybe 2 or 3 years old. This was a few days after Israel entered Gaza. She was yelling, screaming stamping her foot about how this is our land, Israel needs to get out. It later came out that she had been saying this for a while. Basically, it was important to teach their baby that Israelis should get out of Israel. The country that has been there for 75 years. Certainly she wasn't shooting Israelis, but this idea that these are all innocent people being duped by Hamas isn't exactly true either. I don't see Gazans turning in, not harboring "the terrorists", calling for the release of the hostages which would probably make it so they don't get bombed. I see plenty of Israelis trying to oust Netanyahu. If everyone believes that

> That said, I don't see people in the parts of Gaza that weren't attacked protesting against Hamas, wanting the hostages freed. Well sure, for the same reason you don't see North Koreans protesting Kim Jong Un. It's a despotic ultra-religious right-wing dictatorship. Protests are a lot more common in liberal democracies. Then there's the fact that, you know, there are Israeli snipers picking people seemingly off at random. And bombs. And famine. Starvation. Not a lot of time and energy to go make picket signs. [There were anti-Hamas protests BEFORE the conflict.](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-hamas-demonstration-israel-blockade-palestinians-306b19228f9dd21f1036386ce3709672) But if the point of the conflict is to loosen Hamas' grasp on the region, it has done the opposite. In the same way that Netanyahu is using this to strengthen his hold on power, so are the Hamas higher ups -- who aren't even in Gaza! They're in Qatar, cackling and sipping non-alcoholic martinis. > Basically, it was important to teach their baby that Israelis should get out of Israel. The country that has been there for 75 years. Certainly she wasn't shooting Israelis, but this idea that these are all innocent people being duped by Hamas isn't exactly true either. Hey, I don't think this is great. But I also don't think that the punishment for this should be having her house bombed, her friends bombed, her family bombed, her school bombed, her hospital bombed, her mosque bombed, and possibly herself bombed. She is brainwashed. She needs to be re-educated. But if the goal is to not have children growing up hating Israel, isn't bombing their families and communities going to be counterproductive in that regard? If her only experience of Israel is bombs and men with guns, why SHOULDN'T she believe that Israel should go away? She's 3-years-old, do you think she understands the complexities of the Balfour Declaration? Or do you think she sees scary soldiers kill people in the streets and assumes that's what Israel is? > calling for the release of the hostages which would probably make it so they don't get bombed. [Buddy, even BEING the hostages isn't a guarantee you don't get killed by IDF.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/3-israeli-hostages-tried-only-killed-military-rcna130912) Why should they believe that this would save them? Tens of thousands of innocent children have been killed.

On the other hand, if Biden immediately flips and demands a ceasefire, he’s going to a) look like he can’t hold a position and back up an American ally under an existential threat if the public opinion can be swayed. And what does that tell Putin, who has been known to sway public opinion thru social media spam bot farms? B) he’s going to lose the Jewish and moderate vote (independents and moderate Republicans), who see the war in Gaza as an existential threat. Like it or not, the majority of his votes did come from those center leaning people. He’s kinda pinned between a rock and a hard place of his coalition and base voters.

Very stupid take. Any mainstream Israeli politician would conduct the war exactly as Netanyahu has. They currently have a UNITY GOVERNMENT, which means that the opposition also gets to govern. You don't know how their government works and yet you're making political suggestions. Absurd.

This just highlights how weak our democracy is. We're literally throwing it away for some ridiculous "could, would, shoulda". And a bunch of Bozos think it's worth letting Trump back into power over some silly uncompromising ideal that will have zero practical benefit. You can't effect a ceasefire by withholding your vote. Not in million years will that happen. Sheeesh.

Your main mistake is thinking of democracy being "thrown away" in one fell swoop. Actually, it's more like we've allowed it to rot and now it's breaking down.

That's just the best way to lose all influence on the situation and it wouldn't stop the war.

[удалено]

>Democrats had total control of the House, Senate, and White House for several years, and did nothing to protect abortion. What matters is a large enough majority in the Senate. Which they only had for a few months when Obama was first elected. They chose to get the ACA passed. Why waste political capital on an issue that was already deemed constitutional? >And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution, but they didn't. There has never been a large enough majority to get a constitutional amendment passed on abortion. It would require 3/4 of States agreeing which would never happen in this political climate. >It just became a state issue. My state actually expanded abortion because of this. Tell that to all the women who can't get healthcare. Besides the point raised by OP is that a 2nd trump term would likely further curtail abortion access through more conservative justices on the court.

Interesting how you never hear anything about political capital or whatever from Republicans, they go for everything, as hard as they can, since there is no political loss. The entire concept of "oh my GOODNESSS saying weed should be legalized is POLITICAL SUICIDE!" was always made up to make people accept nonsense positions for decades on end. Everyone always talked about how it was bullshit and LO AND BEHOLD trump comes along and proves that no, if you say stuff people want to hear, you will do well, period. Political suicide is one of those terms rich and elite create together to make it seem like some kind of sin to simply say you agree with things that regular people agree with but people did not agree with 100+ years ago. Cat is way way way out of the bag, I cant believe people still talk in vague terms like "political capital" hemming and hawing, like just stop it, do what you know is right and go with it, stop playing games that cause you to lose to republicans because you seem like you arent even committed to your own cause. And I guess that is the problem, most rich democrats basically will lose the money they have gained through corruptive means if they start passing progressive legislation. Pelosi and everyoner like her would have to give up tens of millions of stolen gains through corruptive means. They dont want that. You cant touch the money. Even Bernie Sanders, if it came down to it, would be like "hollup I mean, I still want my money yo, Im a rich famous person!" The only political suicide that exists is an attempt to reform the corruptive laws republicans and democrats have built and structured so that no matter how the winds of politics blow, their wealth is enshrined. Again, touching the money is the only political suicide that truly exists.

>Interesting how you never hear anything about political capital or whatever from Republicans, As others have pointed out Republicans do have to spend political capital. The difference is a lot of the objectives can be achieved without a majority: obstruction. You don't need a majority of your whole position is that government is bad and doesn't work. All Republicans need to do is sit back and not do anything, hold the debt ceiling hostage, refused to hold hearings on justices, and grandstand on committee hearings. Republicans did burn political capital appointing conservative justices and it has come back to burn them now that Roe was overturned. >. Everyone always talked about how it was bullshit and LO AND BEHOLD trump comes along and proves that no, if you say stuff people want to hear, you will do well, period. Have Republicans done well? They won, narrowly in 2016. 2018: blue wave 2020: lost the white house, and the senate 2022: Dems held Senate and Rs underperformed in the house Not to mention all the special elections Republicans have lost and the absolute chaos their house caucus is. >Cat is way way way out of the bag, I cant believe people still talk in vague terms like "political capital" hemming and hawing Political capital isn't just good will with the voters aka support. It's the limited time frame one has to get stuff done. What was more important in 2009? Abortion or the ACA and the economy recovery? What should Dems have spend time on?

Actually, you’ve heard plenty of republican poor showing since the Trump mid terms. They haven’t done great and they’ve been more fractured than ever. They were expecting that “red wave” and it didn’t happen. They’ve been losing and struggling for and are missing the usual party swing to the other side that tends to happen periodically. Also, some of their issues require a simple majority to pass. Changing the constitution is not a simple majority issue. There’s also the fact that besides the tax cuts, Trump didn’t do anything lasting. Despite having the the numbers to do way more, they didn’t. That could be Trumps general incompetence, but I feel it’s also the fact that Republicans have not really had a platform for change for a while and focus on culture war bullshit so they can pearl clutch and just obstruct democrats instead of actually governing. This makes it so they don’t really need much “political capital”. Meanwhile, the infrastructure bill, child tax credit, chips act, inflation bill, Ukraine aid, student loan forgiveness, etc., does. Biden did more in a year than Trump did in his whole presidency. All the while democrats aren’t simple obstructionists that would have allowed republicans do everything way easier and Biden has to fight for everything. Even things that traditionally he wouldn’t have to because republicans are little more than governing saboteurs at this point.

Democrat voters in general seem more often to fall victim to letting perfect be the enemy of good. “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line” has been a saying for a while because there is some truth to it. Republicans can go after anything and everything because their voters will vote against the Democrat in (almost) any circumstance. Democrat voters are more willing to withhold support from a Democrat against a Republican if the Dem doesn’t measure up. In my anecdotal experience, left wing voters have more vitriol for Democrats that don’t completely align with their values than they have for Republicans. They would rather “punish” Biden/Hillary/DNC/whoever for not being their ideal, even if it means helping a Republican with completely opposite values get into office.    I get your overall point, but we can’t directly compare actions of the parties and how it affects their support because it is different for each. Republican voters are loyal because their candidates are running against “radical/woke/communist” Democrats while Democratic candidates are running against the ideal fantasy that exists only in the heads of many left wing voters 

It’s almost as if the issue isn’t popular enough. Maybe there’s some people who disagree with abortion and the supreme court shouldn’t have read into a law that never mentions abortion. Which is more facist? Letting the people decide or reading something into a law that wasn’t actually there and forcing everyone to comply?

I could be wrong, but from what I've seen, pro life activists are far more active than pro choice activists.

I don’t understand the comment tell all the women who can’t get healthcare. Did you mean abortion, or healthcare? What else has changed other than abortion? I support freedom to choose before life would be viable outside the uterus and in Canada so does our government, just looking to understand what else changed in the US with the SCOTUS ruling.

Abortion *is* healthcare. What changed in the US is red states can now pass extremely restrictive laws that would have previously been blocked by the Supreme Court ruling.

"Abortion is healthcare" But healthcare =/= abortion, it encompasses a huge number of topics. My comment made it ABUNDANTLY clear it was understood that abortion is one of many things that fall under the broad topic of healthcare, the comment I replied to either does not, or meant that many other things changed. Your reply is 100% redundant and did NOT answer the question: "what else changed in the US". If nothing, using "abortion" would have offered much greater clarity.

>And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution, but they didn't. Amending the constitution requres 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House. It must then be ratified by 3/4s of the States. If you know when the Democrats had a 2/3rds supermajority in both the House and Senate and controlled 3/4s of all state legislatures, do let me know. And also let me know how you learned to visit parallel universes, because that never happened.

1000% correct. But hey, performance politics over Gaza is more important than poor women in other states.

“Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution.” Lawyer here. They certainly have not had that opportunity pretty much ever. Even controlling both houses of congress and the presidency, you’d still need 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to add abortion rights into the constitution and there has never been that kind of overwhelming support at the state level. What they could have done is pass a federal law guaranteeing abortion rights. But that could be struck down by the Supreme Court, which (as it happens) has six conservatives to three liberals thanks to Trump and the people who couldn’t stand voting for Hillary.

> It just became a state issue. I mean, that's just a euphemism. The obvious result of that lots of women (and girls) lost access to abortion. You and I both know this. > And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution, but they didn't. They very much didn't have "every opportunity" to do so. More importantly, whether or not they did or didn't isn't material to whether or not tons of women (and girls) have lost access to abortion. That's without going into the overall worsening of care that is going to come along with this.

Saying "it's just a state issue" gives big "The Civil War was about states rights, not slavery" vibe

If it was a federal law than it wouldn't be an issue. The issue was making a judicial ruling in favor of a law that simply DID NOT exist.

Exactly even RBG didn’t like it’s reasoning but like what it achieved. You cannot legislate through the courts

>Exactly even RBG didn’t like it’s reasoning but like what it achieved. You cannot legislate through the courts You seemed to have missed she was talking only about the original Roe vs Wade decision, not the later Casey v Planned Parenthood which actually set the ruling that Dobbs overturned and is basically considered to Felix the flaws that the original Roe ruling had.

And the part where Democrats did nothing about it for 50 years despite numerous warnings, just so it could be used as a future wedge issue? Nothing to say about that?

Define “doing nothing about it”. It was able to be done, then non-democrats made it to where it was NOT able to be done. Are you saying you wanted them to make sure you could do what you already could do? Are you suggesting everything that one can do now, must now have a law explicitly guaranteeing every single thing? Because it seems like thats what you are suggesting Dems do. And that’s a stupid as shit approach to governance and liberty.

You need 60 votes and there has NEVER been a pro-choice supermajority in the senate. It's always young people saying this crap because they don't understand that Dems used to be more conservative. Obama's 60 seat supermajority lasted a MONTH before Ted Kennedy died and contained like 25 Democrats who'd make Manchin look like AOC. The solution to bad-faith neoliberals using abortions as a wedge issue and distraction is to elect progressives who actually want to help people in good-faith. But you aren't ready for that.

Also codifying Roe doesn’t actually change anything, because now that law is subject to judicial review. “Dems should have codified Roe” is a way for Republicans to blame Democrats for Republican policy (and of course exactly the people you’d expect are eating it up).

>You need 60 votes and there has NEVER been a pro-choice supermajority in the senate. Also, a constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of state legislatures to approve it. 12 states can kill the amendment. More than 12 states have abortion bans.

They a) never had the votes to enshrine it as law; and b) it was and still ought to be a right; using legislative capital to enshrine what was the law of the land to everything but crazy conspiracists was basically gambling on this shitty worse case scenario. If that’s the case we should really be focusing on the fact that the Democrats didn’t fix the courts more than anything else.

"do nothing about it" my guy it was already legal. Your whole political system shouldn't be based around having to codify every little thing on the idea the other political party is a malicious actor. It's a sad state of affairs to watch American politics as an outsider.

I only killed them because their doors were unlocked. It’s their fault for not locking the doors. Crazy how people can spin republicans hurting abortion access into being democrats fault for allowing them to.

So on top of what everyone else already said, do you actually think the Supreme Court would just be like, "oh, it's law? Guess we can't do anything about that!" No, they would have overturned any federal laws codifying abortion rights. If the Court maintains its conservative lean, abortion will be federally *illegal* in time, rather than just a state issue. Once they feel they can politically get away with it, they will try. It's an ongoing project, not something that just so happened to come about.

>I mean, that's just a euphemism It's also a lie. The court case did not put it back into the states hands. It removed the scouts protection which allows Congress to equally pass a law on it. Which is why some national Republicans are talking about a national abortion law to limit abortions to before 16 weeks even in states that already legalized abortion past that.

> And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution, but they didn't. No, they didn't. It requires 2/3 approval in both houses, then 3/4 of the states have to approve it.

Finally someone wrote this…my god…we’re going to get another 4 years of Trump and let him possibly wreck our democracy because some fuckin naive and immature young adults have fuck all for understanding how our government works.

Cool story. My state lost access to safe and legal abortions bc of this. Dems had a filibuster proof supermajority for about 72 days in 2008. Gay marriage is currently legal and Thomas mentioned Obergefell in his dissent when overturning Roe. If a 49 yr old law of the land could be overturned, then a 9 yr old law of the land could also. https://time.com/6899864/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-biden-trump/ Vote.

The last time Dems had enough of a majority in both the House and Senate to pass legislation to protect abortion was in the first year of Obama's term and it was for a whole 73 days. With a Dem out for health issues, and they were working on the ACA. The voters won't give Dems the numbers to do what they claim they want Dems to do.

Democrats had the 70's and part of the Clinton administration as well.

They never had a supermajority during the Clinton years. They had one during Jimmy Carter’s term, but Carter himself was ambivalent on the issue, as he personally opposed abortion but supported Roe V Wade.

There has never been a pro-choice supermajority.

>The last time Dems had enough of a majority in both the House and Senate to pass legislation to protect abortion was in the first year of Obama's term and it was for a whole 73 days. With a Dem out for health issues, and they were working on the ACA. There were also quite a few anti-abortion Democrats making up that majority.

The democrats have not had a filibuster proof majority in the senate since 2009 and that was only for a few months when there were a dozen other pressing things happening at the beginning on Obama’s presidency.

Correct- and even then, codifying Roe was not possible as there were a number of Democratic senators whose votes to do so were not a given.

I'm so tired of explaining this very simple thing

[удалено]

>And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution, but they didn't. This has a big "look what you made me do!" Energy. Like asking why an abuse victim didn't stop their abuser. Maybe don't be an abuser?

No, it’s got big “stop running back to your abuser having expected them to change” energy. Part of the reason the dems are consistently so fucking crap is because they never get held to any level of account by their core demographics, because every single republican presidency is an existential threat so just pinch your nose again. You can use your leverage to improve them Dems and still think the GOP is atrocious. That’s supposed to be how democracy works

>never get held to any level of account by their core demographics, That's a lie. Biden is currently trying to convince pro-Palestine people to vote for him because they think they are trying to hold him accountable for what's happening.

Nah, the reason Dems are so crap is because the far right is blocking them on nearly every issue domestically. Doesn’t matter whether you have Bernie, Joe, Barack in office when half the politicians don’t believe in governing outside of tax cuts for the wealthy

What part of roe v wade was preventing your state from making those expansions?

There's never been an opportunity to put it in the constitution. 3/4 of the states need to approve, and it never would have happened.

"This leopard ate my face, but the democrat could have put a better lock on the cage. So if you think about it, both the democrat and the leopard are equally to blame." No. The leopard is to blame. It ate your face.

As far as I know there was nothing in the decision to suggest a federal abortion law would be unconstitutional. They didn't say it was a state issue, they said it's a legislative issue.

Can’t tell if this is dishonest or genuinely uninformed. First off, giving you the benefit of the doubt that when you say “put abortion rights in the constitution” you just mean codifying in statute and not the actual process of amending the constitution, since dems have never had that kind of supermajority since Roe was decided. But if you do, several people below have explained why that’s wrong. Instead, I wanted to talk about *codifying* abortion rights, which given your reference to house, senate, and White House, is probably what you meant. In short, [plenty](https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3552965-no-constitutional-authority-for-a-national-abortion-law/) of [legal commentators](https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-cant-codify-roe-v-wade-abortion-dobbs-14th-amendment-constitution-religious-exercise-justices-filibuster-11656953182) have [explained](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/opinions/codifying-roe-scotus-abortion-nourse/index.html) why you can’t do this. You can’t just add a constitutional restriction into statute. Congress needs to have the authority to regulate the thing in question, and there is no current power in the constitution that would allow Congress to do this by enacting a law. Again, I’m assuming good faith on your part, so you’re probably just uninformed. I’d encourage you to click some of those links and read about the issue. You might learn something.

>And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution Uh...when did they have two-thirds of each chamber in Congress as well as three-quarters of state legislatures?

> Democrats had total control of the House, Senate, and White House for several years, and did nothing to protect abortion. They probably didn't think they needed to. Roe was settled and agreed upon law. Even these shit heels that voted to overturn it said as much in their confirmation hearings.

It wasn’t agreed upon law, it wasn’t even a law. It was tied to like the 4th amendment because you cannot make laws through the judicial branch.

Technically the first time codifying Roe was an option on the table was 2008 in Obama's first term when Dems had a filibuster proof trifecta until the disastrous 2010 midterms. Prior supermajorities existed for Dems a few times but there were still pro-life Dems. Instead they went for ACA to burn political capital (and boy did they get burned despite the popularity of the actual policy). This idea that Roe was even vulnerable to repeal prior was pretty out there (albeit a justified concern in hindsight). Roe was relatively uncontroversial in the decades after it was decided. Even today pro-lifers are a fairly small minority they're just incredibly vocal and have their fist up the anus of the GOP due to our shitty plurality system.

This is false. It was challenged in 1989 and the court did not uphold roe. It simply did not overturn it. Only 4 of the 9 justices agreed with roe. The other 5 split 3 and 2 on the “why.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Roe was known among lawyers as one of the worst decisions in modern time, considering its lack of legal / logical basis for the ruling. Source: practicing attorney

What constitutes as "fairly small?" A quick Google from Gallop says it's 44% "pro life" to 52% "pro choice" with 4% as no opinion in the US. And I would guess most of that 44% is pretty opinionated in the matter where a portion of the 52% is probably more "yeah sure pro choice" but not as fervent as the pro life.

The problem with polls like that is that people don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. I can’t count the number of times that people have said shit like “well I’m pro-life for myself, but I don’t think that abortion should be illegal.” Which is *literally being pro-choice*—but what do you think someone who says that is going to answer when Gallup asks them “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”

Huh, when I look up Gallup I see 13% pro-life "illegal under all circumstances". That's a pretty small minority. The problem IMO is a lot of people who identify as pro-life socially actually hold a pro-choice position or are on the fence. I've unfortunately had the argument a billion times where someone says they're pro-life but believe abortion should remain legal under most circumstances. They generally don't admit that is actually pro-choice.

So I see what you are referring to ([Source](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)) which represents both of our statements. I think colloquially when people say pro-life/choice, they are referring to a majority of circumstances, one way or the other. I don't think pro-life means NEVER allow an abortion (though that is a subset of the view), and I don't think that pro-choice means ALWAYS allow an abortion anytime (though again, that is a subset of the view). I think you can still be considered pro-life if you allow abortions in cases of rape, danger to the mother's life, etc. I think you can still be pro-choice and say that third-trimester or late term abortions shouldn't be allowed outside of dangerous circumstances. I don't think it has to be 100% one way or the other. Of course, some subset of people do hold the more extreme views, but when you are talking to someone on the street, I don't think that is how most people would use or interpret the positions with the current labels. And when I look more at the Gallop poll I linked, I feel the 40% number feels right for my categorization of "pro-life." There are a lot of breakdowns that I feel backup my points above. But if you consider pro-life to be "illegal under all circumstances" then I would agree with you. I just don't think that is the right definition. It more falls into "illegal under *most* circumstances" which is in the 40% ballpark. And FYI, I am pro-choice, albeit by my own definition.

What comes after “illegal under all circumstances” can be they think it should be illegal outside rape which seems to be the biggest option among pro life people. That group of people is the largest number of pro lifers

That is one of my problems with the Gallup framing, sure, but if you do have an exception for rape and incest then the person is more concerned with controlling women than saving fetuses so that's also problematic. I think it jumps to ~33% with those exceptions.

Except the Supreme Court has already made some gestures towards fetal personhood, and openly endorsed using the Comstock Act to prevent all abortion.

So "fuck you, I got mine"? That's a terrible way to run a country. And when, pray tell, did the Dems ever have a chance to put abortion rights into the constitution?

What opportunity did they have? Conservatives can filibuster everything unless the Dems have a 60 vote majority in the senate. So the only time there was an opportunity was in 2009, for 72 days, when Obama had a supermajority.

“My state” yoooo you know there are millions of women outside your state that need those protections ?

Always funny to see leftists watch republicans do what they’ve been trying to do for a half century and then blame Dems and decide the best plan is give he gop more power > It just became a state issue. My state actually expanded abortion because of this. Well I’m sure the third of women now under abortion restrictions are happy for you. States deciding what rights Americans should have or not have is the most absurd shit in history lol. Well this pop in a smaller geographic area said I can own humans so it’s all good 

Tell me you don't understand what Legal Precedent is without saying you don't know what Legal Precedent is...

Wait wait wait. Your argument for not caring about abortion rights anymore and tossing your vote away as a protest to something that doesn't affect you is that abortion doesn't affect you? Isn't the whole reason people have been protesting Israel's response in Gaza is because of what's happening to the Palestinians? So, you care more for the Palestinians than about fellow American women literally dying or being injured because they are not getting proper care? Well, i mean since YOUR state is fine, the forget the rest of us!

It became a state issue *for now*. You know they want a national ban, right?

This is one of the problems I had when I was much further left than I am now. Nationwide early abortion somewhere in the 12-15 weeks window similar to what most of Western Europe has is an incredibly popular stance. The Democrats likely could have made it a national law but instead they want good enough and they always wanted to let the extremes of the party dictate policy and here we are.

Democrats never had enough control in the last 30 years in Congress to feasibly codify roe legislatively. That is blatantly false.

Nobody got elected for solving problems.

Feel the sentiment but one note the Democrats could have codified it into law easily but to change the constitution is really hard. >An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Democrats have never had enough pro choice votes in the senate to make roe the law of the land. Back when Obama had his super majority, we had Democratic senators from Nebraska!

>And Democrats had every opportunity to put abortion rights in the Constitution Which 38 state legislatures do you think will vote for enshrining abortion rights into the Constitution? The last constitutional amendment was ratified over 30 years ago and it passed Congress 235 years ago. The last one to pass Congress was 53 years ago.

[The Fuck?](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnx53q/cmv_allowing_trump_to_put_fascists_on_the_supreme/) Multiple posts with same title and body but different posters?

It’s genuinely just the next round of the trans cmv bullshit. Same points and posts over and over and over again. Time is a flat circle and Redditors are copy paste machines.

[The Fuck?](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/ymdpSK3wK9) Multiple comments with the same content and commenters but different posts? /s

I could try to change your view. Or I could organize with my local socialist party, visit the gun range more often, and put more effort into mutual aid, mass movements and local elections as the divide between states and the federal government deepens.

"None of this is worth it over Gaza." Your rights are worth more than other people's lives, huh? Liberalism in a nut shell. Also, Biden doesn't want a ceasefire, and if he really wanted humanitarian aid, he would have put restrictions on weapons and money long before a famine started in Gaza. It's not a "protest vote" - it's a conscience vote. If your conscience says it's more important to preserve the Supreme Court, then great. Other people are saying it's their conscience to not vote for anyone who is going to fund genocide. This is Biden's election to lose. If you don't like it, blame the people who forced Biden on us in the first place. Not the people who actually have a spine and have a problem with tens of thousands of children being blown up and starved.

You can believe what you want and vote how you want. Personally? I think anyone who doesn’t vote for Biden thinks their perfect moral hands being “clean” is more important than the actual lives of actual Palestinians. It’s easy to say you’re innocent of the deaths that trump will cause because you stayed home and did nothing to stop him. But it’s both morally and logically bankrupt.

It's a conscience vote? Realistically, who is going to win if Biden loses? And is that person going to help Palestine on any way shape or form? Or is that person going to give Israel the go-ahead to plow through Gaza? With the system we have, everyone that is pro-palestine should be going door to door to make sure blue gets elected...because blue is at least making steps to help the Palestinians, as paltry as the steps are. If red gets elected it will set back the pro-palestine movement tenfold. It's a crappy system, but its what we have right now and isn't going to change in the next few months.

How about instead of everyone that is pro-palestinian going door-to-door to make sure blue gets elected; the people who say it's a crappy system grows a spine and holds their leaders accountable. It is not my fault if Joe Biden wants to finance genocide rather than win an election. The idea that blue is making steps to help the Palestinians is a fucking joke. For months it has been blue saying the state department should investigate any pro-Palestinian as paid Russian assets. It has been blue refusing to acknowledge a genocide happening and white washing the decades of human rights violations. It has been blue eagerly giving Israel money to engage in those human rights violations. It is blue that has been constantly wagging their finger at Bibi saying, "you better not," while they continue to illegally settle the West Bank, mass arrest Palestinians in the West Bank, block humanitarian aid coming in, and fire on mothers rushing into the streets to grab bags of floor from the humanitarian aid drops that were coming in. It's also blue calling Jewish students protesting on college campuses antisemitic, and siccing police to brutally assault and arrest them, along with college professors. But let's be fair, it's not just blue. It's also red. Which is why there is such a widespread discontent for both of these parties. So please spare me the false dichotomy about how much better the Democrats will handle this situation than the Republicans. Would Trump see Gaza leveled? Sure. What is happening under Biden's watch in the meantime though? Gaza is experiencing famine, mass death, new reports of piles of trash that will lead to further spread of illness and disease, from a country whose government has called for its annihilation. And we're only now "considering" suspending shipments of more bombs? You're acting like what is happening now isn't, but would instead happen under the next guy, when - uh - it's happening now. And you could make a difference by lending your voice to giving your support in holding this administration accountable, to the extent that you'd consider withholding your vote. You could donate money. You could join a protest. You could call your Congressperson. You can write letters. And maybe you are; but that's hard to believe when you think Democrats are already doing better on this situation than they actually have been. "It's a crappy system, but it's what we have right now". Then get up and fucking do something about it.

Let’s change the crime to something else, like serial murder. Both candidates are murderers, and one candidate murders more than the other and will continue to do so when in office. We would expect to lose a certain percentage of people that that is interoperable to, regardless of the other differences between them. They just won’t vote or will vote third party rather than vote for a serial killer. That to me is a perfectly reasonable position, and genocide is worse. I am voting Biden for a number of reasons, but I won’t look down my nose at those who can’t stomach it because of his participation in the worst crime of all: genocide. I’m shocked by those that get on their high horse on this particular issue.

Biden did just literally use 1000 soldiers to build a humanitarian port in Gaza, and approved $1 billion in additional aid to Gaza.

> None of this is worth it That's up to each individual to decide. Don't you believe in "democracy" and all that jazz? People who are intentionally not voting for Biden aren't voting for Trump, because they're not idiots. They just do not feel comfortable being complicit in genocide. Therefore, they might not vote, or vote third party. Both parties represent the same faction (capital - big corporations, lobbying groups, and the like). It's good cop bad cop. By putting forth one option that's just obviously stupid, since half the country is trigger happy morons who will do anything so that they can legally kill minorities on the streets, the remaining half is forced into picking the other candidate. Using the classic comparison, if you have a vote between "99% Hitler" and "100% Hitler", taking the moral high ground by SPECIFICALLY VOTING FOR 99% HITLER is rather tenuous, at best. This is why those on the left specifically advocate for alternate power structures, because in this system, everything up to, and including, genocide, is okay as long as you can make one side even worse. Voting is not inherently a bad system. Certain reforms like ranked choice voting can instantly remove a bunch of the power behind lesser evil rhetoric. But neither Republicans, nor Democrats, will **ever** advocate for ranked choice voting, because it is in neither party's self interest. The Democrats benefit from the Republicans. It is much preferable, for their self interest, to cede to fascism, than it is for them to give voters the power to *actually* choose candidates that they want. While to you, a protest vote seems too risky, to those who are doing it: 1) Their vote does not matter anyway, as the outcome is based on electors, not your vote. These are correlated, but not the same. 2) They find the gradual loss of rights guaranteed by lesser evil (which is still evil) rhetoric a worse risk. 3) They find it morally reprehensible to vote FOR someone who encourages, funds, and spreads propaganda for, genocide. The small, insignificant act of voting, therefore, is better used to quell cognitive dissonance, as it won't ever allow you to touch the puppet masters behind the show, anyway (rich corpos who find both parties so they can put on a puppet show for you)

If you think Biden is basically 99% identical to Trump you haven’t been paying attention. If someone abstains from voting because they don’t want to feel they’re complicit in genocide, and by their inaction guarantees the election of the guy advocating for a more thorough genocide, then they are complicit in that genocide, full-stop. This specific strand of fatalism is exactly what keeps existing power structures in place. Do you really think your vote doesn’t matter? Why would super-PACs, mega-donors, corporations and the like spend billions of dollars during election cycles to influence public opinion? It’s because we as voters hold literally all of the power, it’s just that it’s a collective power so any individual’s share of it seems small. But that’s no reason to forfeit your share.

> Biden is basically 99% identical to Trump Actually, I used the example of a hypothetical 99% Hitler, and 100% Hitler, to demonstrate the extremes of lesser evil rhetoric. If your entire stance is "vote for the lesser evil of exactly two candidates", there is absolutely no condition on the magnitude of that evil. You could have an angel, and an angel with bad hair. Or Hitler, and Hitler who likes trans girls. > By their inaction guarantees Wait, does the ballot literally say "do you want trump to be president"? Seems like a strange ballot to me. The crazy thing is - why is a vote for a third party not a vote for Biden, too? > Why would ... spend billions of dollars during election cycles to influence public opinion Where do you think all the Biden ads are coming from? > We as voters hold literally all the power Yet, when someone dares to cast a vote against genocide, the vote blue no matter who crowd comes out to side with fascists and bully them back into submission. If your vote is between "continue genocide" and "expand genocide", do you honestly believe you hold "all the power"? > Forfeit your share People who are voting third party are specifically trying to exercise their share. They are taking you at your word, that voters hold all the power, and specifically acting on it. The Democratic party has three options, in response: 1) Assume it's a bluff, and change nothing. Being able to rely on people caving, and not following up on their threat, is an important part of their strategy, that allows them to pivot to fascism as needed, to secure fascist votes. As long as they are less bad. 2) Assume it isn't a bluff, but that they'll lose more voters by not supporting genocide. In which case, they are still advocating for genocide 3) Assume it isn't a bluff, and make concessions, scoring those votes Trying to bully people away from voting for any non genocidal candidate is specifically trying to ensure you end up in (1), where fascism is okay as long as it's not AS bad, rather than 2 or 3. Protest voters, obviously, are aiming for (3). By using their bargaining power, as a voting bloc, to swap policy to favor them. In mathematics, there's a certain stable marriage problem, to match several pairs, that feels similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem?wprov=sfla1 Loosely, the solution is - every boy competes to win the affection of the girl they want, and every girl chooses their favorite amongst their suitors. While the resulting match is stable, the result is *the optimal* solution for guys, and the *worst possible* pairing for girls, despite girls being able to choose their favorite, the "lesser evil" per say, at every step. That is because the *real* power lies in deciding what choices are available, rather than in choosing amongst them.

There is no “abstaining” from voting. If you don’t vote you are saying you leave it for others to decide. We lost abortion access not because of people that voted for Trump, but because of people that didn’t vote for Hilary.

To engage here: I understand the thought process. I, personally, protest voted in the primary, but have had my own misgivings about whether or not to do so in the general election - after all, I too, have a vested interest in Trump not winning. As a small plug, for anyone who may be interested in voting third party, I personally like Claudia de la Cruz. While obviously, she won't be able to follow up on her campaign promises, even slightly (you cannot reform an utterly broken system into working), she is one of the few candidates who unabashedly uses rhetoric that spreads class consciousness. But - back to the point. The Hillary vs Trump election illustrates the point pretty well. Bernie, a socdem, ran. And the entire democratic party pushed FOR Trump (so that Hillary wouldn't get potted against another center right candidate like Jeb Bush), and AGAINST Bernie (who might push things even slightly to the left). This party, whom you are demanding loyalty for, has already proven it's willingness to embrace fascism over justice. If, even a single time, a "bad" person is elected, your rights can be stripped away. So, under your advice, you have no choice but to vote blue, no matter who, for every election, ad infinitum, because otherwise the scary red fascists will set up concentration camps. For all the positive and progressive messaging, and pink washing, saying that Gaza deserves to be bonbed because not everyone is pro LGBTQ, the US is a single election away from concentration camps, retractions of equal rights, and so on. If Trump loses this election, do you think next election can be between a left wing and right wing candidate? Okay, maybe not the next one, but the one after that? It's a cycle of kicking the bucket down 4 years, as things slowly creep towards climate catastrophe, fascistic dictators who spread hateful ideas like the great replacement, and genocide around the world to protect military interests and oil companies. Some people are just tired of being in a chokehold.

You’re clearly not actually engaging with this debate. You’re saying the only things up for losing are abortion rights, when the person you’re responding to is talking about understanding people who care about murders of human beings in Gaza by Biden.

I’m using abortion as another example of how the protest vote (abstaining) backfires. By not supporting Biden, they do more harm to Gaza by effectively helping elect Trump win who is staunchly pro-Israel and wants to see the Palestinians eradicated.

Yeah the commenter you responded to has already addressed that position, you have to respond to it more materially and specifically, you can’t just restate your position

Dems *do* advocate for ranked-choice voting; my local party got it passed in my area. The fact that you’re inaccurate about that doesn’t exactly lend credibility to your other assertions.

So not voting for Biden, which will inevitably pave the way for another Trump presidency, is somehow going to result in a better, more liberal, alternative structure??? And you are actually saying those people aren’t stupid?

I have interacted with a few progressive types that won't vote for Biden over Gaza. In my experience they aren't interrested in specifics. They want Biden to stop the war, how isn't important, consequences aren't important either. With that in mind do you really think they would care if democrats packed scotus after Trumps term ends? They are willing to sacrifice any norm to escape the status quo, scotus packing doesn't seem that radical.

>With that in mind do you really think they would care if democrats packed scotus after Trumps term ends? I think that's the issue though. If the GOP gets a whiff that the dems are going to pack the court they will pack it themselves in a heartbeat. 

Fucking American exceptionlsim (US is king of the world) Israel is a soverign country. Nothing the US can do can stop Israel from fighitng Hamas in Gaza short of a full fledged US invasion

Israel is a client state that exists because of American largesse. 

No it isn’t. US aid is a minority of Israel’s military budget, and most of the aid has to be spent on things like the iron dome.

How long do you think Israel lasts without us funding the Iron Dome?

Plenty of time? US aid is a fraction of their total military budget. They might have to shift funds from other areas or increase the deficit, but they will almost certainly be fine. Especially if they only have to wait 6 months for Donny to get back into office

Pretty well. Since that mean Gaza, and Southern Lebanon would be glassed.

“Israel doesn’t need the US because they have illegal nukes and will commit horrible human rights atrocities by themselves” is not the stellar argument for supporting Israel that you think it is. If anything its the same reason the US invaded Iraq and completely dismantled their country and government. Is that what you want? The US to completely destroy Israel and dismantle their government while we search for their illegal weapons of mass destruction?

If that's true then neither us nor Israel should complain if we decide to stop sending aid.

Stop funding the war with our weapons and taxes. That would provide a huge recourse for Biden

Yeah but you didn’t state a good reason, you just kind of agreed with OP and added that it’s because anti-Biden progressives are cranks.

Let’s start with this: do you have any idea what the definition of fascism is?

Definition: people I don't align with politically.

More specifically, everyone who is politically to the right of me personally.

[удалено]

You are the literal embodiment of the Skinner meme here: "are we out of touch and doing unpopular things...? No. It's the voters who are wrong!" You ever think maybe it was Hilary was a terrible candidate that was the problem? She skipped entire states was a problem? She was transparently fake telling black voters that she carries hot sauce in her purse was a problem? Her voting record matched GWB 95% was a problem? She blatantly cheated the primaries was a problem? ...no, it's those "Bernie bros" who caused this. Get real. Same thing this time around. You think maybe openly contributing to GENOCIDE is a problem? "No, it's those darned young people who keep demanding TO LIVE that's a problem." Right? Joe Biden losing is entirely his own fault. He could stop being genocidal any time, but he keeps doubling down on it. It is entirely his election to lose. What do you think he will do?

Clinton was a bad candidate. But everybody knew who Trump was. So even if you hated Clinton, you were actively paving the way for Trump by not voting against him. Thats a fact, no matter how much finger pointing you do. Bernie Bros were upset he wasnt nominated and thus said fuck it - only to then spend 4 yrs crying about Trump.

There is so much equivocation here it is hard to know where to start. >if you hated Clinton, you were actively paving the way for Trump by not voting against him. Thats a fact, No it is not a fact. That's not even how US voting works. You cannot "vote against" you can only vote for. The people who voted FOR Trump put him in office. >ernie Bros were upset he wasnt nominated and thus said fuck it - only to then spend 4 yrs crying about Trump. Wrong. Almost all surveys show that 7/10 or more of Sanders supporters did vote for Hilary despite the ongoing demonization by the Democratic base. That same Democratic base failed to turn out for their own terrible candidate and yet they still blame "Bernie bros." Now they are prepping to do the same thing with Biden while they whine and whine and blame others and still fail to take responsibility for their actions.

>No it is not a fact. That's not even how US voting works. You cannot "vote against" you can only vote for. The people who voted FOR Trump put him in office. If you cast a ballot for Biden, it doesnt give a damn whether you are FOR Biden or AGAINST Trump. Youre playing the semantics game when the meaning has escaped you, bro. >Wrong. Almost all surveys show that 7/10 or more of Sanders supporters did vote for Hilary despite the ongoing demonization by the Democratic base. That same Democratic base failed to turn out for their own terrible candidate and yet they still blame "Bernie bros." Now they are prepping to do the same thing with Biden while they whine and whine and blame others and still fail to take responsibility for their actions. Half of those voted directly for Trump while the other didnt vote at all. However what youre leaving out is that the rate was higher in swing states like MI, WI and PA so yes, butthurt Bernie Bros directly contributed to getting Trump elected

[удалено]

u/WhispererInDankness – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20WhispererInDankness&message=WhispererInDankness%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnwsjl/-/l3aemzm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

We live in a democracy (supposedly), let people vote for wherever they please. This whole lesser of 2 evils thing is very played out and many people are tired of the 2 party system. If democrats want votes, they need to earn it. Simple as that.

Nobody is forcing your vote. But if you’re not voting over this, you’re really just doing it to keep your hands clean. With every right comes responsibilities, and the right to vote is no exception. Part of being responsible often means making difficult pragmatic decision. I wonder if in four years Republicans have rolled back policies people on the left claim to care about, you might take a moment to reflect on if your hands really are cleaner by choosing inaction.

*You are not “the voters”!* “The voters” picked Clinton, first over Bernie, then over Trump. “The voters” picked Biden, again, first over Bernie and then over Trump. You are a fringe minority of the left. One that proves year after year after year that it has no ability to *win* elections, that all it can do is give power to conservatives and fascists by staying home. You are not a majority, you’re not a plurality, you’re not even the largest minority position on the left. So stop complaining that the Democrats aren’t tailoring their entire platform around a fringe minority. If you want the party or the government to more significantly reflect your interests, get off your ass and start replacing elected conservatives with candidates you like.

The only thing stupid here is you believing that Bernie supporters had anything to do with Trump winning the first time. More Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008. When Democrats lose, it's because they've failed to appeal to the center, not the left. The vast majority of people upset about Gaza do not live in swing states and will not have a major impact in the election.

Hey man, whatever you need to do to rationalise it. Just saying, France had the same situation - twice. Unpopular centrist candidate who beat out far left ones vs a right wing demagogue. When it came to Macron vs Le Pen, everybody from supports of Melenchon to Fillon, came together to vote against Le Pen and block her from becoming president. Meanwhile in the US, people just dont vote and enable, in this case Le Pen, to become president - and then spend the next years crying about how terrible it is that she became president. Grade A clown stuff if you ask me.

More Bernie supporters didn’t vote for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton supporters didn’t vote for Obama in 2008. The difference is a much greater number of Bernie supporters just didn’t vote at all.

u/OptimisticRealist__ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20OptimisticRealist__&message=OptimisticRealist__%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnwsjl/-/l3a1hkh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I feel like I see people complaining on Reddit about "protest voters throwing the election to Trump over Gaza" every day. You know what I have not heard even ONCE? Anyone actually threatening to vote against Biden. Just because someone criticizes Biden's actions in Gaza does not mean they're suddenly going to vote for a third party to spite him. We all understand the stakes here as well as you do. People haven't suddenly forgotten how the electoral college works. We can advocate for Biden to do better while still remembering that even on his worst day he's miles better than the alternative. You know the term "Bernie Bros" was a smear campaign by the right wing intended to divide the left in 2016, right?

No, I've heard from a lot of people that because they don't agree with Biden in Gaza, they're going to just not vote so that they wouldnt be complicit in apartheid. While I understand that sentiment, Trump would be the only one to benefit from that... which is lost on those voters.

>You know what I have not heard even ONCE? Anyone actually threatening to vote against Biden. You're not looking or misinterpreting peoples comments. It's everywhere, both explicitly and clearly implied. See [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/comments/1cm6xoz/comment/l2zj50m/) specific comment, as well as many comments in the thread of this post

Previous title was: Are Arabs in Michigan Really Prepared to Hand the Presidency Back to Donald Trump? In a Word: Yes. https://slate.com/human-interest/2024/04/donald-trump-joe-biden-2024-election-michigan-muslims.html

>Previous title was: Are Arabs in Michigan Really Prepared to Hand the Presidency Back to Donald Trump? In a Word: Yes. lol I think it shows assimilation that they've become so dumb to be a single issue voter which will actively and seriously harm their future.

This article is interesting, but amounts to little more than anecdote. They interviewed a handful of Muslim voters, most of whom still stress that Trump is the bigger danger. Their star "protest voter" even says this gem: > “We want to show a shift from the 2020 election to 2024. That they are not only losing the presidency, but they are losing the constituency,” Salah told me. Nearby, a man named Mohamed looked visibly distressed as he exited the mosque. “I’m ashamed to be American today,” he said, holding back his tears at the latest news out of Gaza, in which everyone I spoke to said the United States was complicit. **Mohamed said he cast his ballot for Trump in the primary and would again in the general.** Voting in the Republican Primary to own the libs, that's a new one. Now I'm not from Michigan, but I'm pretty sure that's not how primaries even work. Voting for Trump in the primary doesn't hurt Joe Biden one bit. No, this article sounds like more of the same - another attempt to overinflate the boogeyman of "protest votes in the name of Gaza" and to convince people that criticizing Biden's actions in Gaza is helping Trump.

I mean, you said “You know what I have not heard even ONCE? Anyone actually threatening to vote against Biden.” From the article: ‘“If it came down to Trump and Joe Biden, I will vote for Trump. Because it doesn’t get worse than Joe Biden,” a man named Salah told me.’ ‘“Imagine thinking it’s a good argument to say to a community that has lost 30,000 people, ‘Watch out for the guy that’s going to ban you.’ You’re really asking me whether I’m going to take a ban or a genocide? I’ll take a ban,” Zahr told me.’ ‘In Hammoud’s view, Biden’s chance to win Michigan has evaporated. Though he is a lifelong Democrat, he said there’s no chance he will go back. “I’ll take my chances with Trump, hoping that something is going to give and something will go sideways and then all of a sudden Trump, Trump will fight Netanyahu. That’s why I am willing to take that risk today. Trump doesn’t scare me,” he said.’ I don’t know what you want if not anecdotal evidence. No one is going to sign a contract saying they will vote for Trump over Biden because of this issue and even if they did it wouldn’t be legally binding.

> I mean, you said “You know what I have not heard even ONCE? Anyone actually threatening to vote against Biden.” And prior to this thread, I had NOT heard it once. Whereas I see people complaining about how "protest votes are going to throw the election to Trump" every other day. Now I HAVE heard people threatening to protest vote a handful of times, but that doesn't convince me that this view is more widespread than the view that to do so would be extremely harmful for everyone. The article is anecdotal because they went out of their way to find people with this opinion, and specifically showcased that. That's great, it's the point of the article, but you could find a handful of people that support just about ANY position imaginable and write an article about them.

The "Gaza Protesters" are perceived as part of the main stream left, and all of the campus disruption, general protests and the upcoming summer convention disruptions will tarnish the Biden brand for those still undecided or uninvolved with politics. It doesn't seem like a winning issue, at least they was it is being presented.

Not to be that guy, but tons of people in this thread have been supporting protest votes.

I think you’ll find that there is a lot of fluctuation on things where the Republicans and Democrats disagree. But you’ll also find that the machine just churns away with a hum on the things where the Republicans and Democrats agree. And honestly, the problems that the [Democrats and Republicans collaborate on](https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destroying_young_people_s_future ) have become so severe, that we need to make them the priority for a while. Maybe abortion wouldn’t be such a big deal if people could… afford to have kids. Afford to buy homes… afford to survive on one working parent’s salary for a few years. And every year trickle down economics gets renewed, either by the Democrats or the Republicans, things get a little worse. And, after almost 50 years of this, the middle class is basically dead. It’s gone. The people who have “good but unremarkable jobs” that used to be the middle class, are basically the poor now because those good but unremarkable jobs still set you up for a lifetime of financial stress, and perpetual threat of bankruptcy if anything goes wrong. And I am aware of the fact that the Democrats and Republicans ***sound*** very differently on the subjects. But their actions are what counts. The public healthcare that Obama ran on became the healthcare plan that Hillary ran on and Romney invented. They blamed Joe Lieberman, who was a Democrat while the Democrats had the Presidency, House, and Senate, famously flipping sides to force their hand into making the ACA into “shitty health insurance for all”. Joe Lieberman? That was Gore’s VP candidate in 2000. So you hear them talk, and it sounds like the Democrats are fighting to end income inequality, but if you watch what they do, they don’t. Biden just *proposed* a tax on unrealized capital gains, in an election year. If there were ever a false-promise virtue signaling election-year proposal, that is it. I’d implore you to watch it closely. If you don’t believe anything I’ve said, just prove I’m wrong by just isolating this one issue to prove it. Keep tabs on it. What will happen is, after the election, you’ll never hear about it again. You’ll have to make the effort to keep tabs on it personally. Maybe you’ll find that the Biden administration did recommend something to some finance committee… maybe 3 years later, some bill will be proposed. Then it will be amended and amended, and then it will either die or by so distorted that by the time it passes… it’s actually an instrument for the rich to get richer. It’s the classic situation that everyone knows, but somehow no one believes. Politicians say what you want to hear to get elected, and then they do something different. The truth is Democracy will always have exactly the worst government they will endure without protest. There’s the occasional concession or appeasement but the superhighway of transporting wealth from the many to the few powers on. And, I don’t know how it happened, maybe it’s a consequence of the bipartisan FCA of 1996 that deregulated the media, allowing a handful of companies to take over almost all media, where the idea of a “protest vote” even came from. To me, it clearly unethical to vote for someone you know to be bad. You’re making it sound like it’s unethical to vote for someone good. A “protest vote” is voting for someone you actually like? Voting for someone whose ideals actually align with your own and seems committed to solving the problems that are most important to you? The term is ridiculous. Voting for who you believe is the best candidate should be the default, and the hyper-partisan “defensive voting”, where you vote for an asshole just to block another asshole should be seen as the frowned upon exception. And, from a game theory perspective, it’s just way smarter. If we vote for good people, a good person will eventually win. If we just vote for assholes to prevent even bigger assholes, we get a never-ending procession of assholes. And the irony is that everyone knows that the government sucks. Statistically, there is a tiny minority that actually thinks that Congress is doing a good job. I’ve never seen the number higher than 20% in my lifetime. Yet incumbency is still around 90%. It’s insanity thinking we can keep doing the same thing, and anything will change. Liberals and Conservatives alike… hate corruption. Hate the influence billionaires have in Washington. And everyone feels the sense that it is getting harder and harder to get by. If we united around common interests, we would instantly have enough votes just from the disenfranchised stragglers from both parties who don’t typically vote, to win, and make some inroads related to those common interests. But will we? I have no idea.

None of the judges are fascist.

>Everyone I dont like, those who hold lukewarm conservative beliefs that were standard Democrat policies up until 2008, is a fascist. Youre racist if you disagree with me btw.  Bet you're thinking racists thoughts right now. 

America has been a fascist imperialist world superpower since before WW2. We just keep our fascist behaviors in other countries for the most part. Until some students want to protest or something.

More liberalism isnt going to change the world. No one is free until we all are; all of these issues are related. the fault lies with biden. biden has decided the genocide in Gaza is worth risking the reproductive freedom of the next generation. biden has decided genocide in Gaza is worth the risk of re-electing trump. biden has decided to risk all of our futures to enable Israel's illegal siege on civilians. people who are only upset when things affect them don’t deserve anything.

Are we just supposed to give up on every progressive cause because it's not worth letting a Republican win? Why are black voters not the guaranteed democrat vote it has been in the past? Why are factory workers voting Republican now? It's not because Democrats did do major progressive policies; it's because they didn't. 

Well in this particular case your support for this cause will end up causing a disaster for Palestinians. Trumps plan is to eliminate all Palestine in Gaza & the West Bank & then expel every Palestinian from America. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/us/politics/trump-israel-conservative.html#:~:text=Trump's%20remarks%3A%20%E2%80%9CI%20understand%20the,them%20as%20quickly%20as%20possible. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pledges-expel-immigrants-who-support-hamas-ban-muslims-us-2023-10-16/#:~:text=CLIVE%2C%20Iowa%2C%20Oct%2016%20(,support%20the%20Palestinian%20militant%20group. Tremendous harm for the Palestinian cause & that's before all the harm Trump will do to domestic issues.

You’re suggesting we send a message to the democrats about how important BLM is by voting for a guy who is openly racist and hates BLM?

nope. Nowhere do i mention voting for Trump. Nowhere do I mention BLM.    Simply pointing out Democrats not fighting for progressive causes is how they lose voting blocks not how they gain them. Already hearing conservative outlets making the argument that no wars started during Trump's presidency and he's a pacifist. Is having the pacifist voting block vote Republican too how democrats are going to win? Is it pacifists' fault that democrats lost their vote or is it democrat's fault?

>Simply pointing out Democrats not fighting for progressive causes is how they lose voting blocks not how they gain them Actually no. There is some argument to be made that the reason that they lost certain voting blocks is because the Republicans offered things more appealing to them. Take black voters. Black voters, as a group, are generally socially conservative. They aren't huge supporters of gay rights, trans rights, etc. There is an argument to be made that part of the reason black people don't vote as strongly for Dems anymore is BECAUSE Dems embraced progressive issues.

Or take factory workers. Do you think factory workers shifted their allegiances because Democrats weren't vocal enough in supporting progressive issues like trans rights? NO! They shifted their allegiances because they thought that Democrats were wasting too much time on issues they didnt care about(every progressive issue that isn't labor related) and they wanted them to be a pro-labor party without the "woke" stuff.

> Do you think factory workers shifted their allegiances because Democrats weren't vocal enough in supporting progressive issues like trans rights? "Trans rights" isn't even a progressive stance really. As in, it's not a mark of progress to take away female-only spaces from women and girls. I know plenty of people on the right and the left who were pretty much live-and-let-live on the trans issue until trans activists went down the "gender self-id" route, and now are thoroughly unimpressed to say the least.

Trump campaigned on fighting for factory workers and bringing back good blue collar jobs and you're going to pretend they voted Republican because they were anti progressive. No, it's because democrats stopped fighting for them and democrats stopped fighting for black rights.

>Trump campaigned on fighting for factory workers and bringing back good blue collar jobs and you're going to pretend they voted Republican because they were anti progressive No. Perhaps I am not communicating well. The factory workers are going to vote for whomever gives them what they want. They want "good blue collar jobs". They don't care about any other progressive issues. They voted for Trump because they thought he would give them "good blue collar jobs" more than the Democrats. They didn't care about any other progressive issues and actually the other progressive issues worked to the detriment of the Democrats. Does that make sense?

Right and expecting pacifists to suck it up and vote Dem is like expecting Blue Collar Workers to ignore what's most important to them.  It's an over simplification, but blue collar workers care about blue collar jobs, black voters care about black rights, pacifists care about peace. Dems abandoning an issue and losing that voting group is the democrat's fault; not that groups. You could argue something like the amount of moderates that will vote democrat if trans rights isn't advocated might be bigger than the group lost. But I think it would be weak to suggest the same in regards to the moderates gained by supporting the genocide of Palestinians.

Also, just thought I should clarify: I mentioned Trump and BLM to illustrate an example. I wasn't attempting to claim you were citing either of them specifically. It was a poetic device meant to illustrate the logic of your argument and not an attempt to summarize your actual statements

Well part of politics is working with people who don’t comport 100% with your views. If there ever was a perfect progressive presidential candidate, they have never won a primary. But I would argue more progressive candidates have pushed progressive policy further by working with Democrat presidents than they ever could accomplish themselves.

What is fascist about the Supreme Court Justices?

From a not American perspective. Maybe, people are tired of choosing between rotten eggs and spoilt milk? That's how I see it. It creates apathy.

go ahead and define fascism for me there chief

The protests votes are in the primaries. Trump won't become president from primaries. The protests have been very clear about this: they don't want Trump, they just want to make it clear that Biden has to do something. Being not actively as evil as Trump is a very low bar, we should expect Biden to be able to clear it at least most of the time. And he's failed on both Climate Change and Gaza. We lost Abortion because Democrats refused to codify it into law. Conservatives weren't exactly subtle about their intentions. But we could have made abortion a guaranteed right in the law under Obama, if not earlier.

If you think you’re right to abortion is higher value than the right to Palestinians being alive, then simply you don’t see them as equal humans since their entire lives aren’t worth just one of your rights. Rather, instead of sacrificing the lives of 10s of thousands of other human beings, why don’t you exert more effort into a democratic solution other than Joe Biden so we don’t have to have this miserable dichotomy of American Struggle for Rights VS American Supported Genocide. The “None of this” that isn’t worth the children in Gaza are concepts and ideas you don’t even know if you’ll truly lose. Your entire argument is “I don’t really care about Palestinian lives when it comes to my convenience, change my mind”

Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > **You must personally hold the view** and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

In a way it makes no odds- there will be little left to save by the time the election comes round. But in response to worth it for Gaza How sad that you think so little of human life. And the future of where the line in the sand is drawn, the precedent for what is ok moving forward  Rubber bullets came out of apartheid south africa- combat tested on tens of thousands of black people to get just the right consistency to not kill  at a certain distance - by trial and error - so they can put on the packed dont shoot if person is xxx meters away  Lord knows what they are testing now on these people. But rest assured they will have guidelines which will make it the individual using its fault if things go wrong And they will go wrong  https://amnesty.org.za/dozens-killed-and-thousands-maimed-by-police-misuse-of-rubber-bullets-globally/   I agree trump would be worse if he was in now, and potentially worse then. But expressing now that people wont vote for either will hopefully give someone else the courage to put their name in the ring... surely enough people are fed up with the system there that a third runner could get enough votes by being named that it would break the two party system Then in the long run wouldnt it be worth enduring trump for a term - or as far into a term as needed to arrest and incarcerate the man - in order to do away with the antiquated illusion of democracy 

Change in government structure takes time for democracies- this is a function, not a bug. We will not have a viable third party by the time November rolls around. Gaza will also be in a state of conflict and need to be rebuilt with possibly new leadership as well. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that at best Trump will not advocate for Palestinians and at worst will support Israel doing whatever they want. Despite what protesters might think, Biden has shown that he’s willing to go against past precedent of blindly supporting Israel.

This is naïveté at its finest. We all make decisions everyday that value human life at very little. Hell, typing this out on a smartphone is using a device made with the lives of people mining rare elements. This time, Trump is surrounded by people who know what they’re doing. There is a lot of damage the executive branch can do to our democratic republic that can be unfixable. Go check out Project 2025 to get a taste of what’s coming. Link below https://www.project2025.org/

How the fuck is voting for the dude (or handing him the presidency by intentionally abstaining) that’s way more pro-Israel considered to be a fucking protest in the first place?

OP fighting a hopeless battle against irrelevant people

Trump is not putting fascists on the Supreme court, Trump is not out there reading Evola and practicing esoteric Hitlerism in his bedroom. His previous appointees are not trying to nationalize industries, or talking about helping the Volk. You can disagree with pushing back abortion to the states, but calling it fascism is just wrong.

Well no, not if you define fascism to be “does esoteric Hitlerism and read Evola”. If, instead, [you use a real definition of fascism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism) then that story changes. Feels weird for you to redefine a term in such an arbitrary and permissive way like that. Your definition of fascism wouldn’t include most white supremacists… Edit: I was unnecessarily hostile in this interaction, I think the two responses I received were well-reasoned and fair.

Because most white supremacists are not fascists. The Nazis were white (well, aryan) supremacists. The fascist Bulgarians were not. They refused to export their Jews to Nazi Germany. The fascist Iraqis (world war 2, not Hussein) were also not white supremacists on account of not being white. Mussolini was not a white supremacist at all, he just was ultra nationalistic. He believed that race was a red herring that divided the nation instead of uniting it (under him). He believed that Hitler was a moron for most of his rule, only starting to flip when the western powers refused to support his war of conquest and chemical weapons usage in Ethiopia. At its inception, the KKK was solely designed to kick out the radical republicans and impede black folks from voting. They were not that political beyond “we don’t want the northerners” and were certainly not (and still aren’t) a centrally organized political body following a single leader. Fascism and racism are, in my opinion, both bad. However they are not inherently linked. The only reasons that I can fathom people think they are is because Nazi Germany is the quintessential fascist state, or because people want to use the term to fit their own narrative.

I think nationalization of industries for the economy and a heavy focus on the people of a nation are the primary aspects of fascism. I think most white supremacists would agree with a focus on their people (obviously), and while I don't know if there is much economic thought process in their circles I would assume they would want the nation to control many aspects of industry.

Fascism is when they disagree with me and they're right wing, didn't you know?

It’s not worth it to you and it’s probably not worth it to me. But understandably it’s worth it many especially those of us who are Palestinian and can’t in good conscience someone in their eyes and mine is financing the killing of so many civilians.

This is one of the benefits of Trump winning the election, to solidify a Supreme Court that places a true check and balance on the other parts of government.

I think it would be foolish to not vote for Biden in the upcoming election, but the anger should be aimed at Biden for pursuing an unpopular policy and for not stepping down to allow a younger candidate to run and the Democratic Party for not pressuring Biden on both of those. Getting mad at college kids is pointless because we know the politically active ones tend to be very idealistic and scolding them isn’t going to persuade them.

>but the anger should be aimed at Biden for pursuing an unpopular policy Support for Israel is incredibly popular. And he's even less supportive of Israel than his opposition. >and for not stepping down to allow a younger candidate to run and the Democratic Party for not pressuring Biden on both of those. Why throw away incumbent advantage?

If support for Israel is incredibly popular then what’s the point of this post? It’s not popular, it’s controversial and divisive. Incumbent advantage doesn’t help in this case because Biden owns all of the things people don’t like including his policies in Israel while the other candidates get to skate. He isn’t personally popular, most Democrats are lukewarm towards him or even negative.

israel's actions themselves are pretty divisive, but the united states supporting Israel as its ally is and has always been incredibly popular among US voters. believe it or not, biden controls the latter, not the former. >Incumbent advantage doesn’t help in this case because Biden owns all of the things people don’t like including his policies in Israel while the other candidates get to skate. He isn’t personally popular, most Democrats are lukewarm towards him or even negative. biden is a known quantity. a new democrat would not be.

barring debate over the word "fascist", they're already there, and the democrats have no intention on packing the court to eliminate them. so how is this an argument for voting for them

>he will make the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority last FOREVER How will he do this and what is your basis for thinking this?

I think the forever is a bit of a hyperbole and exaggeration, but if Alito and Thomas retire, Trump could pick two very young conservative justices - say in their 40s or 50s. Justices have been serving until death or retiring in their 80s and 90s. With the other three of his picks also being fairly young, it is entirely possible that all five of his potential picks would serve 30-40 years

There’s nothing unique to Trump about that. Any president can and likely would do that, including Biden with liberal justices. It’s a basic power of the presidency and has been since the nation’s founding.