We don’t have any evidence of finding out yet.

He’s unlikely to get jail time, unlikely to pay any fines he receives and may still ride gerrymandering to finally Noeming the last sickly vestiges of US democracy.

I’m very happy with the verdict though.

Nothing but his own internal monologue and no interaction with the rest of the world? That’s basically a campaign rally for him. He’d love it.

The only way this gig is ethically justifiable is if the support act is a guillotine.

In parliamentry systems you can dissolve parliament, requiring an election. It’s usually a way to bypass deadlock. Imagine if, when republicans are fucking around with the debt ceiling and pissing off the country, you could threaten to call a snap election and let them answer to voters then and there.

So if this passes it would basically force a national referendum on netanyahu’s leadership.

If gantz is pushing this, probably he thinks he can win. That could mean netanyahu’s many financial and political crimes being looked into again. Maybe.

It could mean more of a focus on getting hostages back, but it might not lead to much change in gaza:

Gantz’ centrism is not equivalent to Western centrism: Natenyahu’s Likud party and other Israeli nationalists have “gone so right-wing that the center in Israel has changed,” a Middle East Institute think tank fellow told Al Jazeera. Previously serving as Commander-in-Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces, Gantz has overseen two military offensives in Gaza and labeled several Palestinian NGOs terrorist organizations, indicating it is “unlikely” he would improve the conditions for Palestinians living in Gaza

A fair point.

The popular vote matters, proof that we’re not a democracy matters. Not a lot, probably not at all but maybe in the future it might form part of an argument for making things better.

Given the stakes I’m still going to put in the small effort for a likely doomed longshot. That’s about the most we can hope to achieve with electoral politics, but I still think it’s worth doing.

I’ve seen a number of polls that reiterate how strongly youth and democrats oppose israel’s actions and call it genocide. I don’t think it’s an echo chamber effect.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx

This poll from March shows 55/36 disapprove/approve.

Moreover, democrats disapprove at 75% vs 18% approve and independents disapprove at 60% to 29% approve. Sure, republicans approve at 64%, but ain’t no republicans switching to biden over gaza.

Those numbers are brutal for democrats, and getting worse. More obvious genocide from the israelis and feeble lies from biden isn’t going to reverse that trend.

I personally don’t think that fear of assassination is what’s driving biden and the democrats policy on this.

Given that netanyahu and gvir were almost certainly involved in killing yitzhak rabin I’m sure they’re capable, I just think the risk/reward is off. They can affect US policy without the risks inherent in killing an allied head of state.

I didn’t downvote. I don’t see you having any down votes. I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t feel that your comment addressed the specific point I was making.

I don’t disagree that states are devoid of any ethical capabilities, but they’re not cartoon supervillains. When states are cruel, it’s for specific reasons to achieve specific aims.

I don’t understand what the democrats think they are getting or avoiding with this. To me it looks lose/lose for them.

States just aren’t moral entities - there’s no reasonable moral ground for most anything an imperial power does. It’s almost always just about securing more power.

But I don’t understand how this makes sense for the democrats from even a realpolitik perspective.

When the genocide is this obvious, and the ongoing consequences for the democrats and democracy this serious, it really makes me wonder what’s the political calculus behind it.

Is AIPAC really that big of a threat? Is netanyahu that important to our imperial interests in the middle east? Why choose full on putinesque post-truth politics over this?

I’ve never had much faith in the democrats, but I honestly just don’t understand what’s driving such terrible decision making.

So if it’s just a tankie thing why are you accusing broader leftists of it?

I’ve seen 2 memes complaining about this and no examples of it. I’m perfectly willing to believe that it has happened - if there’s a crazy thought, someone will spout it online.

But it doesn’t seem either widespread or representative of the actual beliefs of real humans in the world.

That’s just not true though.

That would be the structural issue. The candidate who won the election by a light but comfortable margin (48 v 46) didn’t win power.

Possibly timing played a role, sure. But both those candidates are men, so it could just be more proof of her point.

That’s not true at all though. Plenty of lefties talk about the left. Like all the time.

Is there a trolling angle I’m missing or something?

Reading beyond the headline, I kind of agree that she faced a sexist double standard where she suffered electorally for things that wouldn’t have impacted a male candidate as strongly.

Being a slimy, self-entitled political creature is pretty acceptable for a male politician.

Then again she did win the election by 2 percentage points. So as much as I dislike her, it’s probably more of a structural issue than either sexism or candidate quality.

“oppressed profitability” is a fucking brutal turn of phrase.

He’s a weak candidate because he’s a tepid aged rich guy who only loosely reflects what his base wants and is incapable of delivering the level of change the historic moment requires.

He’s uninspiring. The US desperately needs large scale institutional change. With how broken those institutions are, that’s going to require a groundswell of public support, something that can only be done by an inspiring reform candidate, not an establishment figure.

I’m still voting for him, but I’m (eternally) disappointed in the short sighted cowardice of the democratic party.