Mediaboss Marketing

A progressive activist is warning voters against reelecting President Joe Biden, whom she describes as a "dictator" and being "worse than Trump."

"Biden is already a dictator, folks. Fascism is already here under Biden," Bree Newsome said in a Wednesday post on X (formerly Twitter). "Please pay attention to how popular will is being completely ignored because Biden doesn't give af what the public thinks if he can maintain his grip on power."

Newsome, who made national headlines for removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds in 2015, has staunchly opposed a second Biden term since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7. She's repeatedly criticized the president's pro-Israel response, accusing him of funding a Palestinian genocide and vowing to not vote for him in 2024.

Her stance on Biden reflects the growing outrage that some progressives and young voters have felt over the president's handling of the war. Prominent left-leaning voices have echoed her remarks and pushed back on the popular Democratic narrative that Biden is the solution to the Donald Trump threat.

Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment.

Newsome said on X that Biden and Trump were equally "dangerous" but then took a further shot at the president, whom she accused of having "already caused more international & murdered more people than Trump."

Other X users went even further in their criticisms, blasting Biden as being "more dangerous" than his predecessor and alleging that his administration has "embraced Trumpian tactics, policies & personnel while giving people permission to check out because it's presumed the 'serious adults are back in the room.'"

Biden's progressive critics have called out what they see as the "hypocrisy" of his administration and the Democratic Party, arguing that liberals are willing to support Biden even when he adopts attitudes and behaviors that he criticizes Trump for.

"If Trump was circumventing Congress to send bombs being used to blow up babies at Christmas & we were all seeing the videos & aftermath & Bethlehem literally cancelled Christmas, Dems would be apoplectic," @CravenCarpenter said in response to Newsome's tweets. "The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife."

In other posts, Newsome wrote, "If it's Trump's genocide, maybe Democrats will finally be willing to admit genocide is bad" and "'Don't be a one issue voter' Says the crowd that can't engage in any political nuance beyond 'Trump bad.'"

But not everyone has agreed with Newsome's arguments. Many flooded the comments to criticize Newsome over her use of the word fascism.

"This is what happens when you think 'fascism' means anything you don't like," writer Tom Nichols said.

Cornell professor Spencer Beswick wrote, "There are plenty of things to critique Biden for, but calling him a fascist is incredibly misguided, totally ignores the specificity of what fascism is, drastically underestimates the actual threat fascism poses, and leaves us unprepared to confront it."

@ArmandDoma wrote, "The only people naive enough to believe Biden is a dictator are Americans, who have been spoiled by the fact that they have never lived under one."

Last week, Newsome argued that Biden has been able to maintain his grip on the party only because of fears that Trump could win back the White House. Once again, she said, this sets Biden up for a unique election where voters cast their ballots in opposition to a candidate rather than in support of one.

"The fear of a Trump re-emergence is the main thing keeping Biden in power & he knows it, which again reveals something about Biden's own character," she wrote. "In another time, under more functional govt, Biden wld be gone w/o question & ppl wld tell the truth about his disastrous actions."

In the same way she felt it was "imperative" to remove Trump from office in 2020, she now feels the need to vote Biden out of the White House, Newsome said. Both presidential candidates would be "a danger to the world" and a 2024 rematch would ultimately be "a contest between two men who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office again."

"Never thought anyone could be worse than Trump but if anyone could pull it off, Biden is the one," Newsome said.

Others said that even though both candidates are undesirable, they'd be willing to let Trump win by choosing not to vote.

"If Trump is the bullet I have to eat to stop Bidens murderous slaughter of children then I will grit my teeth and take it by not voting for either," @model_daughters tweeted. "And if Trump makes it his genocide then guess what - we're in exactly the same boat but a year late in doing anything about it."

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

See the original post:
Joe Biden Is a 'Dictator' and 'Worse Than Trump': Progressive Activist - Newsweek

The ruling centre-right New Democracy party (affiliated with the European Peoples Party EPP) lost the municipalities of Athens and Thessaloniki in the second round of Greeces regional and municipal elections. Analysts now estimate that a new political landscape is emerging with the collaboration of progressive parties to be in the spotlight.

In the first round last week, candidates of New Democracy ranked first in both Athens and Thessaloniki. However, progressive parties joined forces in the second round, changing the picture.

Particularly, in Athens, New Democracys current mayor, Kostas Bakoyannis (nephew of Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis), was defeated by Charis Doukas, a candidate from the socialist Pasok party who was publicly supported by the leftist Syriza candidate Kostas Zachariadis, who ranked third in the first round.

After announcing the results, Doukas thanked Zachariadis publicly for his support.

The situation was similar in Thessaloniki and other municipalities, as almost everywhere progressive parties joined forces, they managed to beat ruling New Democracy candidates.

On a regional level, New Democracy lost five out of six regions as their candidates were defeated by independent right-wing candidates who did not have the support of the ruling party or by other progressive candidates.

It wasnt a particularly good night, Greek PM Mitsotakis said.

Greek media reported that the results were a blow to the ruling New Democracy and the Greek PM himself, considering that between the first and second rounds, Mitsotakis got actively involved by openly supporting his partys candidates in public appearances and statements.

The main opposition, the Syriza party (EU Left), commented that the results were a first step to ending the countrys nepotism.

Heres what the progressive world does when it comes together [] Tonight is the first major crack in the Mitsotakis regime, a Syriza source told media.

The newly elected Syriza leader, Stefanos Kasselakis, who, after the first round, called on the partys voters to back progressive candidates against conservatives, hailed the result, saying the next milestone will be the 2024 EU elections.

The collaboration between socialist Pasok and leftist Syriza has been in the spotlight for a long time but re-emerged on the surface again after the July national elections, in which New Democracy triumphed.

According to the current polls, Syriza remains the main opposition, followed by Pasok.

In Brussels, the official member of the EU socialist party is Pasok, while Syriza belongs to the EU left. However, EU socialists consider Syriza ideologically close to them and invited former leftist leader Alexis Tsipras to their meetings.

Many EU socialists in the past publicly expressed their hope for these two parties to join forces to take down conservatives. However, based on Greek political features, such a collaboration on a national level still has a long way to go.

Syriza has been more open to such an alliance, while Pasok is more reluctant.

People need a strong progressive force that will send New Democracy into opposition, Pasok leader Nikos Androulakis said on Sunday.

Androulakis hopes Pasok will eventually become the main opposition force and lead the progressive camp in Greeces political spectrum.

Pasok also does not see in a positive light the flirt between Syriza and the EU socialists.

Analysts estimate that the results of the regional and local elections will mount pressure on Pasok to reconsider its stance.

(Sarantis Michalopoulos | Euractiv.com)

Visit link:
Greek progressives deal ruling New Democracy severe blow in local elections - EURACTIV

We do not live by facts. Some people may think they do, but they dont. They live by values. It is values that direct our actions; facts merely tell us how to get where we want to go. Whether we should provide healthcare access to all, or just to those who can afford it, is a values question (and the correct value answer is to all). But whether our country can afford to provide healthcare access for all is a fact question (and the fact is that yes, we can). Those who say that we cannot afford it are ignoring the real facts because they dont want to acknowledge those facts. Their real issue is that they follow a different value system, but they usually prefer not to say so out loud, so they pretend to use facts.

Now, because those people dont really care about facts, it may seem that using facts against them is a waste of time. But this is a mistaken conclusion; facts still matter in the United States (and the rest of the civilized world), and even though having the facts on your side doesnt guarantee an easy victory, it certainly helps, since most people will go along with facts that have enough evidence behind them. (See Galileo, Semmelweis, and/or Wegener.) Even though Republicans are banking heavily on that no longer being true, America still tends to be a mostly fact-based society, where the difficulties have more to do with persuading people what the facts really are, rather than persuading them to use facts in the first place.

But as we stress the importance of facts in making decisions, it is important to remember that facts apply equally to both sides. There is no such thing as a liberal fact or a conservative fact. Liberal and conservative values are different, but facts are the same for everybody. Therefore, if the facts turn out to contradict a Progressive idea, then Progressives must be prepared to adjust or abandon that idea, so that they dont do the very thing that they (rightly) accuse Conservatives of doing.

As an instructive example, lets consider a major Progressive mistake: reforming the teaching of reading in public schools.

There have long been two general methods for teaching children how to read. The traditional method is usually called phonics. The other method is variously described as look-say or whole word or whole language. Through most of the 1800s in the United States the phonics method dominated, although there were some teachers who used the alternate method. But by the early 1900s many leading educational reformers (i.e. Educational Progressives) were strongly arguing that look-say produced better results. That is, children who were taught with the look-say method were able to read better, and, more importantly, they learned to read with better comprehension. Eventually this view came to dominate American public education. In 1930 the best-known product of the look-say revolution was published: the famous Dick and Jane reading books. The Progressive victory seemed complete.

But then. . .well, I wont recount here the history of the phonics wars between Progressives and Traditionalists, except to say that a war erupted, and it dragged on for years. But the important point, as far as facts are concerned, is that in 1967 a Harvard professor, Dr. Jeanne Chall, published a comprehensive book that described the available research on the effectiveness of the competing methods of reading instruction, and concluded that the phonics method (which she called decoding) was unquestionably the more effective method. In 1983 she published a follow-on book that concluded even more strongly than before that decoding produced not only better rote reading but also produced better comprehension. The facts were in, and they were conclusive. The reformers were wrong.

And that should have been the end of the war. Well, in some ways it was, but there still remained some people who clung to the whole word method despite the evidence that proved beyond doubt that it was not the better method. But, ironically, they were now the Conservatives who had become accustomed to a particular point of view and were now unwilling to move on from it. The point is that even in Progressive circles there are some who cling to an idea that they like even if the facts dont support it. And if that is wrong when Conservatives do it, then it is equally wrong when Progressives do it. If we are going to call ourselves fact-based, then we have to live it, not just say it.

See original here:
Progressives, as much as Conservatives, ought to adjust their ideas to fit actual facts - Daily Kos

Progressives are facing backlash over their initial responses to the attacks on Israel by Hamas militants, revealing the degree to which they’re at odds with others in the Democratic caucus over the issue.

Members of the Squad such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) took heat from fellow Democrats this week over statements criticized for being too tepid in the wake of the violent attacks against Israeli civilians. 

Meanwhile, after mounting pressure, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) condemned the “bigotry and callousness” at a pro-Palestinian rally aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in New York City.

The condemnation directed at certain segments of the left underscores the fissures within the Democratic Party when it comes to Israel. It also suggests progressives will have to navigate an increasingly difficult political environment in which they will be expected to unequivocally support Israel’s right to exist while also advocating for Palestinian rights. 

“The challenge is to continue to respond, as I think a lot of progressive members have already done … to acknowledge the common humanity of all of us, of both people,” Matt Duss, a former senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told The Hill.

“We’re going to be getting to a moment where some people are going to be required to show real courage and take a page from Congresswoman Barbara Lee in the wake of 9/11,” said Duss, referring to the California progressive’s vote against the invasion of Afghanistan.

“To say, let’s think about this a little bit. We could be starting something that we’re not quite ready for, quite sure about,” he said.

Bush and Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, were among the most harshly criticized in the immediate aftermath of the initial wave of attacks in Israel. Tlaib suggested withholding United States support to fund Israel’s “apartheid government,” a comment that infuriated fellow lawmakers who found it offensive as the death toll continued to rise. She also categorized the terrorist attack as part of a “resistance” effort. 

Bush, an equally outspoken House progressive, echoed Tlaib’s sentiments.

Some voices on the left saw their public remarks as appropriate calls for de-escalation that recognized the plight of both sides. They argued for an acknowledgment of suffering among civilians in both camps and denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization.

“Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Bush both issued statements that mourned the loss of Israeli and Palestinian civilian lives, and then said we need to address the root causes of violence to get to peace, and they are now being attacked,” said Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, a progressive Jewish group.

Thank you for signing up!

Subscribe to more newsletters here

The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox. Sign up for the Evening Report newsletter

But others in the party were enraged by the statements. Some of the Democratic caucus’s most pro-Israel members, including Reps. Ritchie Torres (N.Y.) and Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), expressed their full disapproval.

“Shame on anyone who glorifies as ‘resistance’ the largest single-day mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust,” Torres said, calling the statement “reprehensible and repulsive.”

The mounting pushback came as Israelis publicly mourned the severity of the ambush as videos showing the atrocities — many of them inflicted on women and children — spread across social media.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the attack by Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, had left more than 1,200 Israelis dead, starting a war in which more than 2,300 people have been killed in total. The U.S. government said that 22 U.S. citizens had been killed in the conflict, and 17 were still unaccounted for.

In a sign of the growing pressure on progressives, Ocasio-Cortez earlier this week criticized the DSA-aligned rally in New York City’s Times Square, a stance that came after she was chided for supporting a ceasefire.

The rally, which was held in support of Palestinians, drew swift rebukes from leaders across the political spectrum. Ocasio-Cortez, whose district is not far from where the protests were held, eventually released a statement condemning it.

“The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement reported by Politico. “It also did not speak for the thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting both Hamas’ horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under occupation.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) speaks during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing for the basis of the impeachment inquiry of President Biden on Thursday, September 28, 2023.

The clash between DSA affiliates and its usual allies such as Ocasio-Cortez highlights the delicate nature of the issue and its evolution on the left. While Democrats are reliable allies of Israel, the party has seen cracks in its support, as many on the progressive left have also pushed for Palestinian rights.

Duss said conversations are already happening between progressive lawmakers and outside advocates about addressing the conflict in a constructive and nuanced way — a potential uphill battle given the severity of the situation on the ground. 

“This horror is very fresh. We’re still learning more about this hour by hour. It keeps getting more awful,” he said. “I do think people are thinking about ways to talk about this in the most constructive way possible.”

“Even in ‘normal’ times, this is a difficult discussion to have. It is far more difficult now for obvious reasons,” Duss added.

Sanders, who is Jewish and has sometimes clashed with pro-Israel Democrats, released a statement Wednesday addressing the conflict. He said Hamas committed a “terrorist assault on Israel” that could have “horrific short- and long-term consequences.” 

His position — which included a reference to “justice for the Palestinian people” and called Israel’s tactics in response to the attack “a serious violation of international law” — went further than others in the Senate.

“Longer term, this attack is a major setback for any hope of peace and reconciliation in the region — and justice for the Palestinian people. For years, people of good will throughout the world, including some brave Israelis, have struggled against the blockade of Gaza, the daily humiliations of occupation in the West Bank, and the horrendous living conditions faced by so many Palestinians,” the Vermont senator wrote. 

Some progressive Jewish activists say Capitol Hill Democrats should formally emphasize de-escalation and are looking to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the top body of elected liberals in the House, to lead the way.  

“It has never been so important that we fight harder, because it just got a lot steeper,” said Miller, whose group is in regular communication with lawmakers. “And that means we need to be louder.”

Blurring the lines further among the left flank, other progressive officeholders offered staunch support for Israel.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.) went further than other Senate progressives for Israel, with Warren tearing up while discussing the devastating losses and Fetterman making it clear that he is in support of Israel “neutralizing the terrorists responsible for this barbarism.”

Meanwhile, many Democrats applauded President Biden’s speech Tuesday, in which he called the Hamas terrorist attack “pure, unadulterated evil” and reconfirmed his administration’s unwavering support for Israel.  

In progressive circles, there is also hope that he and the administration will also acknowledge the struggles of Palestinians and are pushing for a conversation around de-escalation both in Congress and on Pennsylvania Ave. It’s their goal for that discussion to happen sooner than later.

“I understand you want to show complete support and sympathy for the Israelis,” said Duss, who added that the severity of the moment means the president should speak to the full depth of his country’s diversity. 

“This is a president who has taken important steps to address issues of racial injustice and equality. I think a lot of progressives just want him to extend that to foreign policy,” he said.

Read more:
Progressives face backlash over response to Israel attacks - The Hill

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and two fellow NYC progressives are among 13 congressional Democrats who are pushing a resolution calling for a ceasefire and de-escalation between Israel and Hamas.

As Israel prepares to launch a ground assault on Gaza, Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Nydia Velzquez joined in backing the one-page resolution calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

The group, which includes some of the staunchest supporters of the Palestinian cause, demanded the White House work to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and allow humanitarian relief to enter the beleaguered Gaza strip.

We all know collective punishment of Palestinian is a war crime, said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), another co-sponsor of the resolution, the first woman of Palestinian descent in Congress. The answer to war crimes can never be more war crimes.

The measure strikes a very different tone from two earlier congressional measures that sought to address the deadly conflict that erupted after Hamas terrorists killed hundreds of Israelis in the bloodiest attack on the Jewish state in decades.

The first bipartisan resolution introduced by Queens Rep. Gregory Meeks and Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, was designed to express support for Israel after the terror attacks.

The U.S. stands with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists, said that measure, which did not even mention Palestinian civilians.

Nearly 3,000 Palestinians have been killed so far in the Israeli retaliatory attacks, even before an expected ground assault.

A second congressional letter that was signed by nearly 100 Democratic members of the progressive caucus called for Israel to show restraint and to respect humanitarian law in Gaza.

But it pointedly avoided calling for a ceasefire.

The new letter has attracted support from only the handful of strident critics of Israel, like Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman.

The calls for an end to the violence may increase as hospitals in Gaza faces collapse and supplies of water, power food and medicine run out.

Fears are also rising that the conflict could spread to other parts of Israel and the occupied West Bank.

Continued here:
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire ... - New York Daily News