No amount of fundraising will make us forget what hes allowed to happen, the weapons hes provided to make it happen, and the money to ensure Israel had resources to make it happen.
I'm starting to think all the "refuse to vote Biden because genocide" folks on here are propaganda bots. Like we know we're gonna have one of the two shit nuggets here, yall really wanna choose trump and get everything else terrible too?
I remember reading a few years ago that propaganda bots stopped even making posts, they just engage in vote manipulation (Reddit not here) because the bots were so successful that real people now parrot their points
I don't think people who care about genocide are bots because most liberals have no actual morals and only care about their comfort being maintained and not actually fixing anything. Everyone knows Trump is worse. He is not the current President now.
Israel doesn't need any support past the US preventing the UN from actually doing anything concrete, which is exactly what the Biden administration is giving them.
With the exception of airdropped supplies into Gaza, which other countries are also doing, and that hasn't been enough to prevent famine, what would Trump even do to make things worse?
Committing US assets to a war in the middle east is one of the three things Trump's voter base won't actually support.
First of all, I didn’t name names. But how would a Republican be different? They’re all hawks. They wouldn’t pressure Israel to wind things down at all, they might even put boots on the ground
Why are you getting into weird hypotheticals? If it's a republican, it will be Trump. If it's not, because he straight up dies, they'll still be the same voter base: a voter base which isn't going to accept boots on the ground.
"Pressuring" Israel has done precisely fuck all, which is my point. Because by "pressuring" you mean "asking nicely".
And you're right: a republican wouldn't be different. That's what I'm saying.
Hilary outraised Trump by 30% in 2016. She was doing far better in polling than Biden is doing rn, and didn't have the albatross of a country to run hanging around her neck (in fact, Democrats had basically just saved us from complete economic collapse after Bush et al engineered the financial crisis), those were far better D into D headwinds.
If money bought elections, Democrats wouldn't lose as consistently as they do.
She also didn't have her literal rights over bodily autonomy taken away, nazis walking around like their opinions matter, and that shithead she ran against the head nazi and reason she lost those rights in the first place.
1980s in reverse.
Biden wins in a landslide, and the dems sweep it all.
If you don't vote for him in the primaries, fine. But do you really think, Trump will be any better for Palestine than Biden? Because that is going to be your choice. Either Trump or Biden, no one else has a chance.
I expect Trump to give Israel even more weapons and push them to outright destroy all of Palestine. After all during his presidency the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem and was very pro Israel.
At a fundraiser in New York City, the president appeared with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Mindy Kaling, and Queen Latifah — and collected at least $25 million from wealthy, celebrity-obsessed Democratic donors in the process.
The answer to these questions will depend on two considerations: Whether Biden can maintain his current cash advantage, and how much influence TV ads can exert over voters’ perceptions of the race.
Trump enjoys the goodwill of myriad billionaires; one of his upcoming fundraisers is expected to feature Wall Street tycoon Robert Mercer and fossil fuel magnate Harold Hamm.
Earlier this month, he was forced to post a $91.6 million bond after a civil court found him liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of the writer E. Jean Carroll.
Many conservative donors are reluctant to give to Trump, since they fear their contributions will go toward defraying a billionaire’s legal expenses, rather than advancing right-wing policy, according to both Bloomberg and the New York Times.
Specifically, they found that, based on historical precedents, a Democratic presidential candidate who aired 100 more ads than their Republican adversary in a given market would expect to see their vote-share increase by 0.018 percentage points in that area.
The original article contains 1,954 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 90%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
