Biden's Choice.

[Voltaire2]

Stop a genocide in progress, or win an election.

Assume that it is a given that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide in progress.
Assume that the United States can effectively intervene to stop this genocide.
Assume also that by intervening Biden will almost certainly lose the election.
Assume finally that a Republican victory will result in the transformation of our republic into a christian nationalist authoritarian republic.

I’m not at all interested in arguing the merits of those assumptions.

The question is simply, given these assumptions what is the correct ethical choice? Stop the genocide or save the republic?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Sounds more like a dilemma than a choice.

Both options have undesirable alternatives.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma

[Voltaire2]

5. The reference: Sophie's Choice.

[woodsprite]

2. Letting the Republican win would just delay Netenyahu's

Attacks. Only stop them until Trump was installed. It’s not worth relinquishing the United States democracy. We have to put our oxygen masks on ourselves before helping others.

[Voltaire2]

8. Thank you.

You actually answered the question. But I am not convinced that a genocide deferred is not the right choice. Aren’t we ethically compelled to act even if we eventually fail?

[woodsprite]

19. But are we compelled to act if it means relinquishing our own

Constitution and our country to fascism and everything Trump/GOP would destroy with it.

[Voltaire2]

24. well that is the dilemma.

As per the assumptions, the genocide is 'in progress' while the election is ''almost certain'' but in the future. I think ethically Biden has no choice other than to act to stop the genocide despite the risk to the republic in the election. Unfortunately it appears that the opposite decision has been made.

[The Bopper]

3. You act

As though the US controls Israel as the right wing crackpots think we do. I have no doubt Israel should go out of its way to not harm civilians but to blame America and or its President is just playing into Russian propaganda.

[Voltaire2]

6. No I am asking, given a set of assumptions,

what is the right choice.

[KS Toronado]

4. I'm thinking if Biden was instrumental in stopping a war

voters would gravitate towards him, especially after TSF told Putin to do whatever he wanted with NATO.

[Voltaire2]

7. All four assumptions are required.

[Basic LA]

9. I agree.

Stopping Netanyahu's genocidal vengeance-fest, and framing it as such, would be a heroic & popular move.

[Mountainguy]

10. Yeah, stepping in to protect a terrorist proxy of Iran

would be a great move in American politics.

[Basic LA]

11. Stepping in to save an innocent population

from genocide would be a great move in American honor & prestige.
Note: we are not Israel.

[Mountainguy]

18. Well, since it's not a genocide then it's going to be hard to stop it.

And to be clear you think that putting US troops into Gaza to stop Israel is a good move politically or otherwise?

[Basic LA]

20. Financial intervention

And a weapons freeze, both as leverage for ceasefire / aid. No one on earth has suggested military intervention.

[krawhitham]

12. save the republic

It's a number game, 800k in Gaza, 340M in USA

Trump winning will lead to far more deaths that 800k



Now I believe he needs to try to stop the war (netanyahu will not stop, he knows when he does he will be voted out and end up in jail for his crimes before all this went down) OR he will lose to trump

[brooklynite]

13. So you want us to say that doing something that you can't show is doable should be done?

[Voltaire2]

15. Actually I'm wondering what the right choice

would be, given the assumptions.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. I don't accept your assumptions

That said, it is definitely a difficult needle to thread.

[All Mixed Up]

16. I think the assumptions are actually the opposite of what the poster is suggesting.

[myohmy2]

17. a great...

...statesman should be able to do both...

...

[BlueKota]

21. Save The Republic

If we were to not do that the world's 3 major power countries would be controlled by dictators. More people lives would be endangered around the world. Look at the number of people Stalin and Hitler killed.

What country would have the power to face off against China, Russia, and the U.S, if the U.S becomes part of an evil trio. Look what's happening in Gaza is tragic, but stopping Trump has to be the #1 priority. If we don't it will be a global catastrophe not just a regional one.

I seriously don't understand how people can so blithely dismiss how dangerous it would be if the U.S. turns into a dictatorship run by Trump? The tragedy in Gaza will not be stopped by the destruction of the U.S. as a free country.

[Beastly Boy]

22. How can one choose between the only two options permitted for consideration

without questioning the merits of the rather questionable set of assumptions that go into favoring these two options to the exclusion of all others?

I see no purpose in this. This is a version of a push poll: the assumptions it contains lead to a predetermined choice of outcomes.

[angrychair]

23. Don't think they are mutually exclusive

I do think he can do both. Its all in how you sell it.
The factor you leave out is Ukraine. I think that is the harder sell with Republicans in the House.
I think the way around that is already in the works. We will give money/weapons to NATO and they will in turn contribute those weapons/money to Ukraine.
NATO recently took a vote to approve contributions directly from NATO so I assume that is why.