And then he’ll either walk away glad he dodged a bullet or slip drugs into her drink and probably not face any real consequences. People don’t seem to understand how the Rogan/Musk/Tate loving Trump supports think. Just a reminder, a higher percentage of women voted for Trump in this election than last so I don’t think the political right is going to be significantly impacted by this.

Eh, I’ll concede that she wasn’t screaming her ideals as loud as possible, but that goes back to my original point. The political left is a fickle voter base. Kamala had good ideas, she had policies, she had been part of the successes made under Biden, but she put most of her focus into attacking Trump. It sounds like the argument being made is that uninformed voters weren’t encouraged enough to vote and more liberal disenfranchised voters didn’t turn out because they didn’t like her policies. If this is the case which makes more sense:

1.) Making some policy changes so they can get people who don’t historically come out to vote to do so or,

2.) Making some policy changes so that people who historically come out to vote will vote for them.

Someone threatening not to vote, when they historically don’t anyways, isn’t much of a threat or motivation.

I don’t know, at this point I’m starting to ask myself if it’s the Democrats fault if the majority of the people agree with the opposition? If she had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college I might have believed that it was simply appealing more to the Democratic base or appealing to less enfranchised liberals, but she lost the popular vote by a long shot. Not only did she lose, but she lost after the other guy has had 4 years of public attack, federal crimes, rape convictions, Project 2025, and basically promising that Palestinians and Ukrainians will get fucked. Hell, the percentage of women that voted for Trump went up in this election.

If people didn’t turn out because Democrats aren’t appealing to leftist ideals enough I fear the message heard by the DNC isn’t to appeal to even more progressive or socialist ideals, but to adopt even more moderate policies. Just facing the facts, but the political left is an unreliable voter group and it’s extremely entitled. Instead of trying to be a foil to Republican ideals Democrats are more likely to try more moderate options. Think of it as creating an alternative instead of being an opposite, Coke and Pepsi instead of Coke and Sprite. It feels like the needle of America’s social equilibrium has permanently moved to be more conservative.

It’s kinda hard to call that a threat. It’s more accurate to say it’s an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.

I think arguments about who has a claim aren’t the real question here. Recency vs historic rights to a region aren’t enough and really never have been. The whole argument comes down to who has the power to hold the region and any arguments to the contrary are naive. Israel has the power, Palestinian’s didn’t want to play ball, so Israel took the ball home. A large part of Israel being able to hold the region has come down to geopolitics and capitalism. A lot of companies have headquarters and branches in Israel which makes a lot of money. Hamas, like the Taliban, are not expected to be good for big business. On top of that, Israel is friendly and cooperative with western allies and is one of the few such in the region. The west is not going to trade a friendly but harshly conservative Israel for an unfriendly and even more conservative Hamas.

You can talk all day about who deserves what, who has rights to what, and what the moral thing to do is. At the end of the day the world is going to follow the Golden Rule, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

It’s kinda hard to call that a threat. It’s more accurate to say it’s an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.

I don’t have a novel idea, I’m not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It’s continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.

People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it’s inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.

My view has as much weight as yours

This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn’t make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that’s just idealism.

Well I disagree that my view isnt possible.

Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.

Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.

Which is why your disagreement doesn’t matter.

And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.

Hey that’s totally fair, I’m not saying she should be everyone’s preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won’t vote for Kamala like they don’t understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren’t vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.

The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.

If you’re in a county or state where your vote won’t matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.

Amen, I was so freaking mad in 2016 because I was a big Bernie supporter and I remember reading an article where some college kids had been polled. The kid in question said he wasn’t really fond of Hillary and was thinking of not voting for her. The interviewer asked who he liked to which he said he really preferred Bernie Sanders and was upset he didn’t win the primary. The interviewer then asked if he had voted in the primary and the kid said he had forgotten to go vote.

I’m not convinced that the people posting these aren’t propaganda accounts anyways. The account was made in May of this year, has only 4 posts which are all about Israel, and the way they are phrasing their responses sounds like a foreigner. This could be a college kid that protested at school or it could be a 35 year old man in Istanbul for all I know.

Wouldn’t it be much better if no-one gets hanged or genocided?

Wouldn’t it be much better if we lived in a world where asking “Wouldn’t it be much better” magically made complicated and unrealistic things happen. You didn’t even bother to write a decent response, you just jumped straight into a whataboutism.

Very very well said and your point about consistency is absolutely true. Someone posted an article a few months back in which young people were threatening not to vote for Biden because of the support for Israel and the first thing to go through my head was, “So basically no change.”

You seem very aware of this, but I wanted to add some numbers in case you or someone else wanted the comparison. The highest 18-29 year old turn out was 2018 at 28% (almost like buyers remorse for not showing out in 2016). In 2014 the turn out was 14% while in 2022 it was 23%.

In 2020 there were 158 million people who turned out to vote and there are an estimated 52 million people in the age group (lets assume they are all eligible to vote). Lets say this group of unhappy progressives accounts for 10% of the turnout and instead of having 28% we instead will get 18%. The difference is 5.2 million votes (28% equals 14.5 million and 18% equals 9.3 million) which equates to about 3% of the total voters if we look at 2020’s general election.

Are you actually advocating that people shouldn’t have to show up to the political system to get the system to go their way? Like, this is exactly what the primaries are for. Obama wasn’t the preferred party candidate in 2008, it was Hilary, but there was so much primary support from Obama that he won over her. The same could have happened in 2016 or 2020, but young voters predominantly didn’t come out to vote in the primaries.

If you think you should be able to just fill out a poll and turn out in November you fundamentally don’t understand how the system works.

Nope, the thread they were responding is this one (https://lemmy.one/comment/13175909) which is about the two parties (specifically whether higher turnout would benefit one party or the other). Someone else replied saying that it’s about the system being broken (itself a strawman). This guy made an attack on the person, but was still focused on the two party system. Then you made a strawman as well.

What you’re talking about is idealism. In a perfect world you would be correct. In a perfect world the US could have affordable and efficient mass transit within a few years. In a perfect world we could end climate change in just a few years. When your argument is based on a state of the world that doesn’t exist the point of the argument is immediately useless.

This is the problem with the anti-work movement, the anti-car movement, and people who are anti-single family homes. The arguments they make are theoretically possible, but getting enough people to move in tandem to that is just never going to happen so belaboring the point over and over is just not helpful.

We live in a world where the US has 2 political parties, if one wins we get a beige moderate government, if the other wins we get Project 2025. If your idealism makes it so hard for you to determine which outcome you want then literally nothing can be done for you. If you have the idea that letting the republicans win so that then a true progressive party can exist then you need to look at history because right wing dictators historically kill the idealistic liberals and progressives right behind the Jews, POC, and homosexuals.

It’s not really a strawman argument, it’s closer to an ad hominem. In fact, the argument you are making is closer to a strawman.

“A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” -Wikipedia

Saying that “if you can’t tell the difference between the two parties is a you problem” is attacking the person not the issue. Saying that the difference between the two parties isn’t the problem (when that’s what is being argued) and instead it’s the system is by definition a strawman. Using the strawman to make the discussion about the futility of voting in a flawed system just goes to show how much of a strawman it is.

Hey but both sides suck and it’s not worth voting this year.

But my claim is that the statement is false, not that they intentionally misled, so even if they were understandably confused, that still seems to be untrue.

But it isn’t inaccurate, that’s the thing. The Twitter post says, “a Photojournalist and Writer/Editor for both Al-Jazeera and the Palestinian Chronicle.” That is factually true…

claiming this some kind of intelligence community…but it’s understandable that they can’t even figure out if this guy works for al Jazeera? You’ll have to help me square this.

The group is a discord channel for people in the intelligence sector, I don’t know what you need squared about that. Take it for what it is, an early alert gossip mill by people who hear things before most other people do.

I have no need to rush to a conclusion on this. I’m just reporting what one of your links said. In your attempt to rush to a conclusion, you already were convinced of a falsehood. Maybe you should slow down too.

I haven’t rushed to any conclusions, I’ve been sharing news articles as they come out.

I can’t help but read your points as attempting to paint al Jazeera as some bad guy in this whole thing.

Whether you pay them or not, posting articles from potential terrorists isn’t a good look. The same can be said about any media group associating with terrorists, the same happened with CNN, NY Times, and Associated Press on October 7th.

How long ago was this tweet that is from some group that you claim is 10 hours ahead of the news? And we’re being critical of al Jazeera for not rushing out an article in that time?

Not sure why you’re asking me when something was posted when I shared the link to it, that’s just lazy. I never criticized Al-Jazeera for not publishing a response, I simply stated that they haven’t, and my response about that was even understanding that not much time has passed?

I think you’re the one rushing to conclusions and should slow down.

Eh, I wouldn’t say it’s false. The description of the guy comes from Al-Jazeera’s website where they say he is a reporter and photojournalist and he did write for Al-Jazeera. If Al-Jazeera is going to post his work and list his information on their website I think it’s understandable that people might think he is employed by them.

As for the attack being unverified, the other link I provided stated that the IDF confirmed that address and house (which is time stamped after the article you are referencing). Additionally, a third party who is identified as a Hamas operative in Europe was referenced as a source for these claims in both articles. I don’t know how much more confirmed you can get unless you’re holding out for Anderson Cooper to be live from the living room?

Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere that Al-Jazeera is denying he was doing anything, the only thing they appear to be denying is that he was employed by them. Even then, Al-Jazeera doesn’t seem to be making any articles about the guy, the whole thing was correspondence with representatives of Al-Jazeera, this stuff happened so recently I wouldn’t be surprised if Al-Jazeera hasn’t had time to post anything yet. For context, this information is <24 hours old, the first US article I see about it was only posted an hour ago.

Ah ok, my apologies. Yeah, there’s not much in the way of mainstream international news picking this story up. Pretty much it was just Israel saying they raided XYZ houses, these are the people they found inside. Individuals made the connection to Al-Jazeera and mainstream Israeli media picked it up, but they’ve backed off a bit once Al-Jazeera clarified.

I’d generally agree with a general dislike of Twitter supporters, but no one has really stepped up to fill in Twitters void (at least that get the same level of traction as Twitter). Paying the Twitter tax still seems to get your information out faster and farther than almost any other alternative. I think the only way Twitter is going to fully fall will be if it no longer is profitable to run, otherwise large groups will continue to use it. One positive is that people seem to be diversifying from Twitter with Lemmy, Mastadon, Reddit, or something else (I guess Discord falls in the something else).

Now if you’re just a regular person and paying for Twitter blue then I agree that you’re probably not trustworthy or at least a bit stupid.