The line he’s walking right now definitely isn’t working but saying that cutting support to Israel and sanctioning them “would pretty much guarantee” him the election just is not true at all (unfortunately). It’s not even close to true.
The line he’s walking right now definitely isn’t working but saying that cutting support to Israel and sanctioning them “would pretty much guarantee” him the election just is not true at all (unfortunately). It’s not even close to true.
Biden could pretty much guarantee a win tomorrow by announcing that it has been determined that Israel is indeed committing war crimes, followed by cutting support for them as per the Law when the recipient of help is committing such crimes, ideally followed by sanctions.
I wish this was true but it very much isn’t. He’d immediately lose Pennsylvania, at a minimum.
Traditionally it meant Soviet apologists. Now it gets used more generally for the authoritarian left, where the horseshoe starts curving around.
I can see the insanity on both sides.
But being able to see both sides doesn’t mean both sides are exactly equal all the time. They’re not.
Without a doubt. Just saying it’s not 100% on the right.
Hard to know what to do about it when the people who are the most susceptible to misinformation are often the ones who think they’re the least susceptible to misinformation.
And no I don’t just mean right wing chuds. I’ve found there’s a heavy correlation between people who are certain they are immune to propaganda and know the real truth and people who have, in fact, been conned by propaganda and misinformation. Conspiracy theorists, MLM adherents, antivax weirdos, homeopathy people … they’re all “doing their own research” so they can’t be conned.
The hubris is always a dead giveaway. A sort of Dunning-Kruger thing.
For what it’s worth I totally acknowledge that I can be and have been tricked by misinformation and propaganda.
I definitely do not think it does, and I agree with the rest of your post that neutrality would be a better path forward