Biden could’ve vetoed the multiple aid bills that passed his desk with arms shipments to israel after oct 7th and after it became clear Israel was using this as an excuse to obliterate gaza.

He could’ve also enforced the leahy laws which prohibit arms shipments to countries that are suspected of using them for human rights abuses.

He didn’t do either because he is a zionist who is fine with the genocide of Palestinians.

Russian propaganda, wtf. Newsflash Russia has good relations with Israel, not as subservient as the u.s., but they aren’t really complaining about the genocide. I guess you just think that anything that’s against the democrats is Russian propaganda, in which case I’d say your a good tool for democrat propaganda.

Made an edit since you people can’t seem to take a short reply but I’ll copy it here:

I try show some brevity once instead of writing paragraphs and get told I don’t know my history, so here’s some paragraphs.

Yes Israel has been carrying out a process of slow ethnic cleansing for decades. Biden while in congress along with all the other dems repeatedly backed arms sales to this apartheid state knowing it was going to kill Palestinians. The violence ramped up in 2023 as Israeli settlers committed pogroms against Palestinians, which is part of the reason hamas did oct 7th. During this time Biden did nothing to reign in the Israelis, and instead tried to throw it under the rug to get a deal with the Saudis to normalize relations. Then Oct 7th happened and Israel went on a full onslaught against Gaza, and to a lesser extent the west bank and Lebanon. Biden again did nothing to stop this and continued to give military aid and diplomatic support to Israel. By the end of his administration Gaza was uninhabitable. Now trump seems primed to allow Israel to finish what it started and complete the ethnic cleansing.

Ffs “this phase of the genocide” happy, point still stands, Biden enabled Israel to bomb Gaza into obliteration and trumps finishing the job and all Liberals have to say is “i told you so”

I know Israel has been carrying out a slow genocide for the past couple decades but they haven’t ramped up to this level since the Nakba. If you think this is the same as anything pre October 7th, post 73 you need to look at the pictures coming out of gaza.

*Biden enables genocide

Progressives: that’s fucked up, we should stop supporting Israel

Liberals: ackchually its not a genocide because they only killed a quarter of the population, and you should stay quiet about this because it’ll just help trump win

*Trump enables genocide

Progressives: that’s fucked up, we should stop supporting Israel

Liberals: I told you so, I told you so, I told you so…

Still here, Joe Biden started the genocide, trump looks like he’s going to finish it.

Not sure if the liberals are much louder in condemning this, judging by the comments here they seem to just want to say “I told you so”

EDIT: I try show some brevity once instead of writing paragraphs and get told I don’t know my history, so here’s some paragraphs.

Yes Israel has been carrying out a process of slow ethnic cleansing for decades. Biden while in congress along with all the other dems repeatedly backed arms sales to this apartheid state knowing it was going to kill Palestinians. The violence ramped up in 2023 as Israeli settlers committed pogroms against Palestinians, which is part of the reason hamas did oct 7th. During this time Biden did nothing to reign in the Israelis, and instead tried to throw it under the rug to get a deal with the Saudis to normalize relations. Then Oct 7th happened and Israel went on a full onslaught against Gaza, and to a lesser extent the west bank and Lebanon. Biden again did nothing to stop this and continued to give military aid and diplomatic support to Israel. By the end of his administration Gaza was uninhabitable. Now trump seems primed to allow Israel to finish what it started and complete the ethnic cleansing.

Eh, not really, ags sue companies all the time for not acting in there shareholders interests. It’s usually more along the lines of the CEO giving a contract to his buddy that costs the company more, but any time a public for profit company pursues some interest other than maximizing shareholder value they open themselves up for a lawsuit. It could be a purely nepotistic or self dealing interest, or it could be your interest in justice, if it’s not about making money and you didn’t disclose to the shareholders that your decision is not about making money you have defrauded them who are invested solely to make money.

It’s a reading of the fiduciary duty of loyalty that most companies and courts have come to accept, if you knowingly do something to decrease shareholder value for some personal interest than you can be sued for it. This is the reason public benefit companies exist, so you can pursue noble causes like dei or fighting climate change that may reduce profits, without risking a lawsuit.

This can be used for good such as in the case of the 2021 McDonald’s shareholder lawsuit that alleged it’s failure to address rampant sexual harassment caused a loss of reputation and shareholder value. Ironically as a result it implemented a DEI program to address the problems…

The problem with the lawsuit is that they have to prove the dei stuff was about some ideology of the board and not about making money. Which will be hard to prove because at the time forecasts probably would’ve showed that embracing dei would increase profits. Even today they probably made more money off the rainbow merch then they lost.

This isn’t even the craziest story from florida this week, did you miss the story of the Floridian terrorist who shot an Israeli tourist thinking they were Palestinian earlier this week?

I guess DeSantis has been quiet aver since he was destroyed by trump but the people of Florida have been maintaining there reputation.

Public for profit companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. When you issue shares of a company you are signing a contract to put the companies needs over anything else when administering the company.

If it just worked off proportional representation like you imagine then the majority shareholder could unilaterally sell the company off to themselves for pennies or do self dealing to enrich themselves at the companies expense. No one would ever invest in a company because they could never be sure their interests would be met unless they had a controlling stake.

Companies need a goal in order to judge the administration by and to be able to call foul if they stray from that goal to pursue personal interests. For most public companies that is profit, and if you stray from that goal for your own personal interests, even if it’s a noble one like preventing climate change, the other shareholders can sue you for that. They didn’t sign up for your personal moral ambitions, they signed up to make money and they have a contract that says so.

If you want to pursue things other than profit you can register as a public benefit corporation which can consider things like climate change in there decision making process without risking a lawsuit from shareholders. This changes the agreement between the shareholder and the company so the shareholder knows that they aren’t going to make the most money at all costs. None of the major oil companies are registered that way though.

Read up on the duty of loyalty here before calling bs and thinking you can change big oil from within

These are for profit public companies, they are legally required to prioritize profits over anything else. Even if you had a controlling stake if you tried to push through something that would decrease profits, like lowering fossil fuel production, or even adding expensive carbon capture methods that would cut into the bottom line, the rest of the shareholders could sue you.

Owning a stock keeps the price high though as you’re restricting supply, and it looks like his trust has also bought more shares so it’s increasing the demand as well.

A high stock price doesn’t fund the industry directly, unless it’s a smaller company that’s still issuing stock which he also seems to be invested in a lot of those. It does increase the power of the industry though. If a lot of people divested from fossil fuels that would lower the value of the stock and the net worth of the principal owners. Those principal owners are currently using their money to bribe politicians into ignoring the climate crisis and to increase fossil fuel extraction. If they had less money to do that, then it’d be a lot easier to pass legislation to address climate change.

He also seems to be buying bonds in the industry as well which is more directly funding the industry. Also, a high stock price allows the companies to get more bonds at a cheaper rate, so that also helps to fund the industry.

All of this is also missing the main point of the article in that bill gates is profiting from the fossil fuel industry and has a stake in seeing it continue, while pretending he’s a champion for climate change.

Yeah, if you repeated this test with the person having access to a stack exchange or not you’d see the same results. Not much difference between someone mindlessly copying an answer from stack overflow vs copying it from AI. Both lead to more homogeneous answers and lower critical thinking skills.

America doesn’t work like that. Due to the way the electoral system is set up only two parties can be viable at any given time. The only time you can create a new party is in a realignment, eg. When Lincoln formed the republican party as an explicitly anti slavery northern party and the democrats became the pro slavery southern party. Prior to that it was the whigs and the democrats, which were aligned around issues other than slavery.

So unless the progressives can force a realignment along some new issue and subsume a major party, creating another party would just be handing a lot of elections over to the Republicans.

This is why lemmy was so vehemently against Jill stein and the greens even though most people on here agree with her politics more than kamala, because they saw her as sabotaging the democrats chances and handing the election to trump.

Also hijacking a party is easier than building a new one and if you gain control you can use the power of that party to shift opinion. Most voters these days vote based on there team, or more recently against the other team. So if the democratic party started pushing a green new deal then the rank and file would fall in line, if nothing just to stop the Republicans. You can see this in how trump hijacked the Republicans. If you showed a republican project 2025 in 2015 they wouldve called it absurd, but now most are in support of it.

They never really wanted gaza, it’s a small piece of land with little historical ties to the bible/Torah. In fact it has more ties to the philistines (non jewish inhabitants of the area), yes that’s where the word Palestine comes from, who were there historical enemy.

There long term goal pre October 7th was to try and move all the Palestinians in the rest of Israel into Gaza. You could see this with there funnel immigration policy, if you left Israel for east Jerusalem you couldn’t come back to israel, if you left east Jerusalem for the west bank you couldn’t come back to Jerusalem, if you left the west bank for Gaza you couldn’t come back to the west bank.

The problem with this plan, besides the ethics of doing a slow ethnic cleansing, was that if you concentrate that many people in an open air prison it tends to radicalize them against the wardens. So they had to deal with constant missile fire, they thought Iron dome would solve this but Oct 7th removed that image of safety.

So now they need a new plan. They can’t force them out as no country will take them. They can’t occupy it long term because it just becomes a pit to throw Israeli soldiers in, that’s why they left in 2005. So trump volunteering to take it off there hands is the perfect solution, the u.s. can pay the money and lives in a quagmire while the Israelis can “live in peace”

How does that compare to microk8s? I have been using that for a while and like the plugins.

Yes bidens diplomats made the deal, along with Qatari and Egyptian mediators, but they were unable to get Israel to sign it. It was only after trump was elected and started talking to bibi as the president elect that the Israelis signed the same deal that they rejected 6 months ago.

They hadn’t achieved any significant accomplishment that would prompt them to say “we’re good now” and finally sign. The only thing that changed was the incoming administration.

I don’t know what trump said to bibi but whatever it was it changed his mind on a ceasefire. My guess is he just wanted a 6 week break so that he could roll out all the horrible shit he’s been doing in his first month without having to deal with Gaza. They probably went along with it because trump is more likely to follow through on stopping weapons shipments because he’s less committed to the zionist cause and political norms of unwavering “defensive” support for Israel.

Or maybe bibi was just tanking peace talks to drag down Biden and they were actually fine 6 months ago but wanted to help trump win first. Possibly with some collusion with the trump campaign but I doubt the dems will ever investigate that like they did russia because that would be anti-semetic.

In either case I don’t think bibi would’ve signed if Harris won. Either because he doesn’t respect her or he wants to drag down the democratic party.

where are all the genocide Joe’s at?

Here? It looks like the person who posted this is what you’d call a “genocide joe”. There are tons of people in this thread like me arguing that what he did is still horrible. Do you want us to say trump is worse? Yeah rhetorically, but objectively Biden presided over a year and a half of unmitigated horrors and trump has presided over a ceasefire.

Money rules all. The war machine demands blood to convert into dollars.

If this were true, Biden wouldn’t have pulled out of Afghanistan. He did though, despite huge backlash, which i commend him for, because he knew the war was an unjust waste of money. He didn’t do the same for Gaza because he is a staunch zionist. This also ignores his lame duck period where he wasn’t beholden to any corporate interests, and he still kept sending weapons to Israel, because he’s doing it out of principal not pressure.

Also it’s not like Afghanistan since there’s still another war going on. If Biden cared about the genocide he could make a deal with these oligarchs to compensate any loss in sales in gaza with more spending on Ukraine.

Hopefully they’ll switch there tone on the “incumbent advantage” after back to back one term presidencies.

We haven’t invaded Gaza yet, and i don’t think we will just like i don’t think we’ll invade Canada or Greenland. Trump says a lot of dumb shit that will never happen. The only thing that has happened since trump took over is a ceasefire.

we were not gonna stop them no matter who was in charge. I think Joe did as much as he could

He could’ve at least tried by blocking arms shipments. Biden could’ve done that at any time since there’s already a law on the books that the u.s. must stop weapons shipments if there is credible evidence they will be used in war crimes. Biden and his state department refused to enforce this law and ignored multiple reports about war crimes to do so. One time they tried to do it on a specific squad in the Israeli military of ultra orthodox that was doing crimes in the west bank but gave in after bibi said it was anti-semetic.

Even if that wasn’t an option Biden could’ve vetoed the many arms packages that were passed after it was clear Israel was attempting a genocide, he didn’t. Even after he was effectively a lame duck after he dropped out and didn’t have to worry about the Israel lobby. Even after he was actually a lame duck and the dems already lost.

This wasn’t Biden being handcuffed by outside forces, he had multiple opportunities to stand against the genocide and refused to because he is an ardent zionist who is fine with the horrors in gaza.

Idk if you know this but there is a ceasefire right now. Most of the protests i went to were in response to some escalation or atrocity: new “aid” package being sent, expansion of the war into Rafah, expansion into Lebanon, ground forces going in etc. People tend to protest against escalation events but we are currently in a period of deescalation.

You should expect to see them again in response to trump’s latest proposal, it’s not going to happen overnight since this came out of nowhere, or when the first phase of the ceasefire expires and people protest to keep it going.

Also wtf is this aneurysm posting “it went from free Palestine to the Rivera of the middle east in 16 days” what does that even mean? And they say the pro-palestine people are bots.

Alright new atrocity from Israel just dropped, who should we blame:

• The fascists running Israel
• the fascists running the US
• the democratic party who teed up the atrocity
• a couple hundred leftists on lemmy who didn’t vote