Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in Novemberā€™s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because heā€™s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying theyā€™re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet itā€™s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the ā€œuncommittedā€ movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the presidentā€™s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.

The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Bidenā€™s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israelā€™s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Oh you think weā€™re far enough down the thread, I forgot we covered this already?

    0.8 percent. Versus between 2 and 5 percent, generously. I can put it into per 100,000 for you if you like.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      2 months ago

      So 1% is okay for civilian deaths but 2-5% is not?

      Thatā€™s a pretty arbitrary cutoff.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        2 months ago

        Itā€™s a pretty huge difference in how militaries fight. For example we didnā€™t carpet bomb entire neighborhoods in Iraq.