So, why exactly is Flynn going to skate now after pleading guilty AND fucking over his cooperation deal? I know that the prosecution were replaced with Trump toadies, but it's in the judge's hands now, right?
So, why exactly is Flynn going to skate now after pleading guilty AND fucking over his cooperation deal? I know that the prosecution were replaced with Trump toadies, but it's in the judge's hands now, right?
With the current state of the world, I can't see this being a high priority for the court, and more leniency given the lawyers. And with Trump interjecting himself, I can see the Judge Sullivan not wanting to deal with this until after the election. Because regardless of which way he rules, it's going to be a shitstorm. He rules in favor of leniency, he gets accused of either sucking up to, or being browbeaten into submission. He rules against leniency, and he's accused of making things political in the lead up to an election.
This is why Presidents don't interject themselves into active cases. This is why Trump does. Because regardless of the outcome, he gets a win. "See? Flynn was innocent all along!" or "Activist judges trying to affect the election!". And the media will eat that shit up.
+3
Options
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
So, why exactly is Flynn going to skate now after pleading guilty AND fucking over his cooperation deal? I know that the prosecution were replaced with Trump toadies, but it's in the judge's hands now, right?
With the current state of the world, I can't see this being a high priority for the court, and more leniency given the lawyers. And with Trump interjecting himself, I can see the Judge Sullivan not wanting to deal with this until after the election. Because regardless of which way he rules, it's going to be a shitstorm. He rules in favor of leniency, he gets accused of either sucking up to, or being browbeaten into submission. He rules against leniency, and he's accused of making things political in the lead up to an election.
This is why Presidents don't interject themselves into active cases. This is why Trump does. Because regardless of the outcome, he gets a win. "See? Flynn was innocent all along!" or "Activist judges trying to affect the election!". And the media will eat that shit up.
And just a followup here, thanks to @enlightenedbum in another thread...
So, it seems my prediction that Flynn would escape consequences in six months (Trump win or lose) was hopelessly optimistic.
I clearly missed the "What's the point of owning an Attorney General, if I can't get people who support me out of criminal charges" memo.
And yet there'll be no consequence. This will change no minds. The US is now a country where 45+% of the voting public are "Fuck it, no laws apply to our side.".
On the Silvercorp thing, context is that there's already a drug trafficking blockade from an US/UK/France coalition in the Caribbean Sea since the year started. So nobody knows exactly why these losers were there, just clown shoes/amateur hour all the way down.
Most likely theory is that Guaido and his advisors were for it, was told "that's a stupid fucking idea" by the US authorities and realized that Silvercorp was full of shit, then Maduro caught wind of it and paid those dumbfucks to do it anyways through his mole Cliver Alcala, that is on the center of this conspiracy because of course he is.
There is undoubtedly going to be disagreement here but between the embassy bullshit and this I'm guessing Biden just actually is fairly comfortable with the apartheid state and any attempt to intercede on behalf of the Palestinian people is going to be lip service at best. Victim blaming lip service.
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
It's not a stance I agree with at all, but I am also not surprised by it. This was entirely predictable and I hate it so very much, but I have been resigned to this for way too long. I am yet again profoundly disappointed in the leadership (and potential leadership) of my country. By the time any presidential candidate is going to take even the mildest of anti-Israel stances, it's going to be too late for the Palestinians.
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
Are you defining Biden as the old guard here? Because he was brought the topic up. Many times. Enough for an Israeli newspaper to freak out at him. (low bar there granted)
I think he’s an old man who grew up closer to the shadow of the Holocaust than most of us, and that’s going to influence his worldview in a lot of ways.
New York Times article from yesterday:
“Criticism of Israel’s policy is not anti-Semitism,” Mr. Biden said. “But too often that criticism from the left morphs into anti-Semitism.”
Mr. Biden, who was answering a question about anti-Semitism on the left in the United States and England, added that “arguably, we haven’t heard enough about the Holocaust because people are still trying to deny its horrible reality.”
“So many people forget,” he went on, “it’s almost hard to believe.”
...
Mr. Biden himself said he was disappointed in Mr. Netanyahu for having moved “so, so far to the right” and called for Israel to “stop the threat of annexation” of West Bank territories.
“It’ll choke off any hope of peace,” Mr. Biden said, according to a pool report.
Mr. Biden said that “my commitment to Israel is absolutely unshakable” and pledged to reverse actions taken under President Trump, including restoring diplomatic relationships with the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Biden has previously said that Mr. Trump should not have moved the United States Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv but that he would not move it back.
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
Yup. This is basically the standard foreign policy stance of the US on this issue and has been for awhile and the consensus on it is quite broad. It's not even really notable it's so bog standard.
It's not a stance I agree with at all, but I am also not surprised by it. This was entirely predictable and I hate it so very much, but I have been resigned to this for way too long. I am yet again profoundly disappointed in the leadership (and potential leadership) of my country. By the time any presidential candidate is going to take even the mildest of anti-Israel stances, it's going to be too late for the Palestinians.
Yeah, this has pretty obviously been the way it's gonna go for a long time now imo. The Israelis are just gonna keep slowrolling over the Palestinians and there's no real broad political will in the US to do anything to alter that.
But the answer to that is not enabling the descendants of survivors of the Holocaust to establish an apartheid state against their own marginalized ethnic community!
Like, at what point does this go on and we all go "oh fuck, that was a cycle of nightmares right there and our foreign policy was to just let happen, when we weren't actively encouraging it"?
like, the problem with trying to explain Biden's position as "he grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust" is that it ignores all the people who also grew up in it's shadow, and the descendants of direct survivors, who recognize that Israel's actions are in active defiance of the ideal of "Never Again."
You cannot honor the ideals of Never Again, of trying to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust from ever occurring to anyone ever again, while enabling a state to oppress a group based on its ethnic status while it engages in a campaign of seizing land from that ethnic group.
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
Yup. This is basically the standard foreign policy stance of the US on this issue and has been for awhile and the consensus on it is quite broad. It's not even really notable it's so bog standard.
It's not a stance I agree with at all, but I am also not surprised by it. This was entirely predictable and I hate it so very much, but I have been resigned to this for way too long. I am yet again profoundly disappointed in the leadership (and potential leadership) of my country. By the time any presidential candidate is going to take even the mildest of anti-Israel stances, it's going to be too late for the Palestinians.
Yeah, this has pretty obviously been the way it's gonna go for a long time now imo. The Israelis are just gonna keep slowrolling over the Palestinians and there's no real broad political will in the US to do anything to alter that.
At what point is this not just nihilism dressed up in a fancy suit of being "realistic"
The whole "welp that just how politics do" thing is pretty gross to be honest. No one here would react with anything other than revulsion if someone pulled that out when a Republican went into another bout of socially acceptable racism.
The whole "welp that just how politics do" thing is pretty gross to be honest. No one here would react with anything other than revulsion if someone pulled that out when a Republican went into another bout of socially acceptable racism.
"listen why are we talking about agitating for civil rights reform? Jim Crow and Segregation are so bog standard to the US it's not worth talking about" - that argument applied to the Civil Rights Movement prior to the passage of the CRA
All it does is give yourself an excuse to do nothing, not even complain, in the face of a glaring injustice, because it's an established status quo.
Like I said in my last post: It's nihilism dressed up to seem more astute and politically mature than it really is
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
Yup. This is basically the standard foreign policy stance of the US on this issue and has been for awhile and the consensus on it is quite broad. It's not even really notable it's so bog standard.
It's not a stance I agree with at all, but I am also not surprised by it. This was entirely predictable and I hate it so very much, but I have been resigned to this for way too long. I am yet again profoundly disappointed in the leadership (and potential leadership) of my country. By the time any presidential candidate is going to take even the mildest of anti-Israel stances, it's going to be too late for the Palestinians.
Yeah, this has pretty obviously been the way it's gonna go for a long time now imo. The Israelis are just gonna keep slowrolling over the Palestinians and there's no real broad political will in the US to do anything to alter that.
At what point is this not just nihilism dressed up in a fancy suit of being "realistic"
I'm not sure how it's any of that. It's just simply true that the broad political consensus on the issue of US-Israel relations is what we've seen from the Democratic party for decades now. And there is no real push to change that consensus that actually has any power. I remember wondering if J-Street could get the ball rolling on that but it's been well over a decade now and it's still basically the same. BDS has not really managed any sort of major shift either. Even Bibi's fuckery has barely changed things. It's an observation built on watching this issue move (or rather, not move) for like 2 decades now.
I don't know where you think nihilism enters into it. Doesn't really make any sense honestly.
The whole "welp that just how politics do" thing is pretty gross to be honest. No one here would react with anything other than revulsion if someone pulled that out when a Republican went into another bout of socially acceptable racism.
"What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican party" is actually an extremely common comment so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Democratic party nominee has standard american position on foreign policy issue" is not at all surprising.
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
Yup. This is basically the standard foreign policy stance of the US on this issue and has been for awhile and the consensus on it is quite broad. It's not even really notable it's so bog standard.
It's not a stance I agree with at all, but I am also not surprised by it. This was entirely predictable and I hate it so very much, but I have been resigned to this for way too long. I am yet again profoundly disappointed in the leadership (and potential leadership) of my country. By the time any presidential candidate is going to take even the mildest of anti-Israel stances, it's going to be too late for the Palestinians.
Yeah, this has pretty obviously been the way it's gonna go for a long time now imo. The Israelis are just gonna keep slowrolling over the Palestinians and there's no real broad political will in the US to do anything to alter that.
At what point is this not just nihilism dressed up in a fancy suit of being "realistic"
I'm not sure how it's any of that. It's just simply true that the broad political consensus on the issue of US-Israel relations is what we've seen from the Democratic party for decades now. And there is no real push to change that consensus that actually has any power. I remember wondering if J-Street could get the ball rolling on that but it's been well over a decade now and it's still basically the same. BDS has not really managed any sort of major shift either. Even Bibi's fuckery has barely changed things. It's an observation built on watching this issue move (or rather, not move) for like 2 decades now.
I don't know where you think nihilism enters into it. Doesn't really make any sense honestly.
because the view you're espousing is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy of an eternal status quo that cannot be upended and when applied at our current level of discourse (a forum discussion thread) only serves to shut the conversation down in a nihilistic "What can you do" manner instead of exploring the issue at hand and attempting to dissect and understand it.
You literally said "it's not even really notable it's so bog standard." and just... I don't know, maybe there's actually a fucking conversation to be had on this topic instead of just waving our hands about it being useless.
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
It continues to be the consensus because neither the general public or the political class have shown any desire to change on the issue, despite attempts to convince them to do so. There is broad agreement on what the US's stance should be re: Israel and so the policy remains consistent.
Very few democrat elected officials are willing to even broach the topic of Israel's despicable policies towards Palestine, and literally none of the old guard.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
Yup. This is basically the standard foreign policy stance of the US on this issue and has been for awhile and the consensus on it is quite broad. It's not even really notable it's so bog standard.
It's not a stance I agree with at all, but I am also not surprised by it. This was entirely predictable and I hate it so very much, but I have been resigned to this for way too long. I am yet again profoundly disappointed in the leadership (and potential leadership) of my country. By the time any presidential candidate is going to take even the mildest of anti-Israel stances, it's going to be too late for the Palestinians.
Yeah, this has pretty obviously been the way it's gonna go for a long time now imo. The Israelis are just gonna keep slowrolling over the Palestinians and there's no real broad political will in the US to do anything to alter that.
At what point is this not just nihilism dressed up in a fancy suit of being "realistic"
I'm not sure how it's any of that. It's just simply true that the broad political consensus on the issue of US-Israel relations is what we've seen from the Democratic party for decades now. And there is no real push to change that consensus that actually has any power. I remember wondering if J-Street could get the ball rolling on that but it's been well over a decade now and it's still basically the same. BDS has not really managed any sort of major shift either. Even Bibi's fuckery has barely changed things. It's an observation built on watching this issue move (or rather, not move) for like 2 decades now.
I don't know where you think nihilism enters into it. Doesn't really make any sense honestly.
because the view you're espousing is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy of an eternal status quo that cannot be upended and when applied at our current level of discourse (a forum discussion thread) only serves to shut the conversation down in a nihilistic "What can you do" manner instead of exploring the issue at hand and attempting to dissect and understand it.
You literally said "it's not even really notable it's so bog standard." and just... I don't know, maybe there's actually a fucking conversation to be had on this topic instead of just waving our hands about it being useless.
No it isn't. You can try to change it. People are trying that right now. They've just failed so far. Which is why you see the Democratic nominee for president espousing the same standard position on this issue. Just like the last many did. You should not be surprised by this. It's the US's stance on the issue and has shown no sign of budging.
About to step away from being able to type but I would like to throw this idea out here for a moment:
Like many things, the issue of Israel’s apartheid against the Palestinian population is a collective action problem that cannot be solved through individual action. And ultimately even BDS boils down to something, particularly the boycott aspect that riles up so many, that is individual action. It lacks the collective force of state-backed action. To a great degree, Shryke, I think your position regarding as to why Biden and the Party hold their BDS and Palestine position* fails in this regard. You are thinking in a mode that is inherently flawed at correcting collective action problems, that places the onus of change on the underdog movement upsetting the current empowered status quo before those in power will allow it even a consideration let alone meeting its demands. Such a mode of thinking cannot promote change, particularly in the face of entrenched powers on the level of the current alliance between America in its foreign policy and the Israeli right wing; to solve a collective action problem like this will require leadership driving this effort at a national foreign policy level.
And Biden is demonstrating he is utterly uninterested, let alone equipped, to handle that.
*also honestly, I think you’re too quick to presume that this is the Party’s status quo. Biden pushing this angle is the hardest I’ve seen a party leader among the democrats go against BDS and the Palestinians. It is the kind of drivel I’d have expected from the GOP on the topics during the Obama years, rather from something Obama’s VP would have expressed during the administration. While ultimately unsurprised that Biden is pulling this shit, there is a sense I’m getting that ultimately Trump and the GOP’s shifts are giving Biden cover for positions he would not have been able to maintain from the 2008 to 2016 terms
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
The Dems threw Omar under the bus and actively contributed to the constant stream of threats she receives for the crime of accurately describing Israel's relationship with the US and Tlaib is facing a fierce primary.
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
I have to wonder whether Biden in this situation and in general is a result of an influx of embarrassed Republicans into the Democratic party.
No. This is just the standard Democratic party position. Which is why I point that out. There is nothing strange or new or fundamentally different about his position here. It's exactly the position you'd expect from a Democratic nominee, whether now or 10 or 15 or whatever years ago.
Posts
It is, but it looks like the judge is punting.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/482395-judge-delays-flynn-sentencing-for-second-time
"Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order Monday canceled a sentencing hearing slated for Feb. 27. The judge, a Clinton appointee, did not schedule a new hearing for the former three-star Army general."
With the current state of the world, I can't see this being a high priority for the court, and more leniency given the lawyers. And with Trump interjecting himself, I can see the Judge Sullivan not wanting to deal with this until after the election. Because regardless of which way he rules, it's going to be a shitstorm. He rules in favor of leniency, he gets accused of either sucking up to, or being browbeaten into submission. He rules against leniency, and he's accused of making things political in the lead up to an election.
This is why Presidents don't interject themselves into active cases. This is why Trump does. Because regardless of the outcome, he gets a win. "See? Flynn was innocent all along!" or "Activist judges trying to affect the election!". And the media will eat that shit up.
EDIT: Well this explains a few things.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
And just a followup here, thanks to @enlightenedbum in another thread...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/michael-flynn-case-dropped.html
So, it seems my prediction that Flynn would escape consequences in six months (Trump win or lose) was hopelessly optimistic.
I clearly missed the "What's the point of owning an Attorney General, if I can't get people who support me out of criminal charges" memo.
And yet there'll be no consequence. This will change no minds. The US is now a country where 45+% of the voting public are "Fuck it, no laws apply to our side.".
They're just flaunting it at this point.
Most likely theory is that Guaido and his advisors were for it, was told "that's a stupid fucking idea" by the US authorities and realized that Silvercorp was full of shit, then Maduro caught wind of it and paid those dumbfucks to do it anyways through his mole Cliver Alcala, that is on the center of this conspiracy because of course he is.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Just because it’s real doesn’t mean it’s not a joke
Jesus christ what the fuck Joe.
There is undoubtedly going to be disagreement here but between the embassy bullshit and this I'm guessing Biden just actually is fairly comfortable with the apartheid state and any attempt to intercede on behalf of the Palestinian people is going to be lip service at best. Victim blaming lip service.
It was never gonna be a foreign policy priority no matter who was the democratic candidate, and explicitly taking a pro-Israeli stance is not surprising. That's kind of been the default policy stance for decades.
It really isn't!
Not but it is realism.
It isn't, but I submit that it is true and accurate.
Are you defining Biden as the old guard here? Because he was brought the topic up. Many times. Enough for an Israeli newspaper to freak out at him. (low bar there granted)
Eh, without US backing they'd probably have started getting slapped with sanctions long ago.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
because he thinks they deserve to die
New York Times article from yesterday:
Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/us/politics/joe-biden-israel-anti-semitism.html
Yup. This is basically the standard foreign policy stance of the US on this issue and has been for awhile and the consensus on it is quite broad. It's not even really notable it's so bog standard.
Yeah, this has pretty obviously been the way it's gonna go for a long time now imo. The Israelis are just gonna keep slowrolling over the Palestinians and there's no real broad political will in the US to do anything to alter that.
Like, at what point does this go on and we all go "oh fuck, that was a cycle of nightmares right there and our foreign policy was to just let happen, when we weren't actively encouraging it"?
like, the problem with trying to explain Biden's position as "he grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust" is that it ignores all the people who also grew up in it's shadow, and the descendants of direct survivors, who recognize that Israel's actions are in active defiance of the ideal of "Never Again."
You cannot honor the ideals of Never Again, of trying to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust from ever occurring to anyone ever again, while enabling a state to oppress a group based on its ethnic status while it engages in a campaign of seizing land from that ethnic group.
At what point is this not just nihilism dressed up in a fancy suit of being "realistic"
"listen why are we talking about agitating for civil rights reform? Jim Crow and Segregation are so bog standard to the US it's not worth talking about" - that argument applied to the Civil Rights Movement prior to the passage of the CRA
All it does is give yourself an excuse to do nothing, not even complain, in the face of a glaring injustice, because it's an established status quo.
Like I said in my last post: It's nihilism dressed up to seem more astute and politically mature than it really is
I'm not sure how it's any of that. It's just simply true that the broad political consensus on the issue of US-Israel relations is what we've seen from the Democratic party for decades now. And there is no real push to change that consensus that actually has any power. I remember wondering if J-Street could get the ball rolling on that but it's been well over a decade now and it's still basically the same. BDS has not really managed any sort of major shift either. Even Bibi's fuckery has barely changed things. It's an observation built on watching this issue move (or rather, not move) for like 2 decades now.
I don't know where you think nihilism enters into it. Doesn't really make any sense honestly.
"What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican party" is actually an extremely common comment so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Democratic party nominee has standard american position on foreign policy issue" is not at all surprising.
because the view you're espousing is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy of an eternal status quo that cannot be upended and when applied at our current level of discourse (a forum discussion thread) only serves to shut the conversation down in a nihilistic "What can you do" manner instead of exploring the issue at hand and attempting to dissect and understand it.
You literally said "it's not even really notable it's so bog standard." and just... I don't know, maybe there's actually a fucking conversation to be had on this topic instead of just waving our hands about it being useless.
It continues to be the consensus because neither the general public or the political class have shown any desire to change on the issue, despite attempts to convince them to do so. There is broad agreement on what the US's stance should be re: Israel and so the policy remains consistent.
No it isn't. You can try to change it. People are trying that right now. They've just failed so far. Which is why you see the Democratic nominee for president espousing the same standard position on this issue. Just like the last many did. You should not be surprised by this. It's the US's stance on the issue and has shown no sign of budging.
There's plenty of interest from activists in changing the consensus. It's just that said interest is not catching on.
Like many things, the issue of Israel’s apartheid against the Palestinian population is a collective action problem that cannot be solved through individual action. And ultimately even BDS boils down to something, particularly the boycott aspect that riles up so many, that is individual action. It lacks the collective force of state-backed action. To a great degree, Shryke, I think your position regarding as to why Biden and the Party hold their BDS and Palestine position* fails in this regard. You are thinking in a mode that is inherently flawed at correcting collective action problems, that places the onus of change on the underdog movement upsetting the current empowered status quo before those in power will allow it even a consideration let alone meeting its demands. Such a mode of thinking cannot promote change, particularly in the face of entrenched powers on the level of the current alliance between America in its foreign policy and the Israeli right wing; to solve a collective action problem like this will require leadership driving this effort at a national foreign policy level.
And Biden is demonstrating he is utterly uninterested, let alone equipped, to handle that.
*also honestly, I think you’re too quick to presume that this is the Party’s status quo. Biden pushing this angle is the hardest I’ve seen a party leader among the democrats go against BDS and the Palestinians. It is the kind of drivel I’d have expected from the GOP on the topics during the Obama years, rather from something Obama’s VP would have expressed during the administration. While ultimately unsurprised that Biden is pulling this shit, there is a sense I’m getting that ultimately Trump and the GOP’s shifts are giving Biden cover for positions he would not have been able to maintain from the 2008 to 2016 terms
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
No. This is just the standard Democratic party position. Which is why I point that out. There is nothing strange or new or fundamentally different about his position here. It's exactly the position you'd expect from a Democratic nominee, whether now or 10 or 15 or whatever years ago.