Shit now there's nothing stopping him from doing immoral undemocratic stuff like pardoning his children.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 433
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 433
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
What a relief! , Here I was thinking it was an incendiary non-discriminate weapon that could horribly maim civilians if used in a densely populated city like beirut.
From the nakba, to their initiation of the six day war and the resulting ethnic displacement of some 400k people, to their 80s invasion of Lebanon and the resulting ethnic cleansing at Sabra and Shatila, to their siege on gaza since 2008 targeting civilians by cutting off food and building materials and regular bombings, to their reaction to the peaceful march of return protests (snipers targeting the elderly, children, and the disabled), to the current ongoing well-documented genocide, what is it about the history of Israel that makes you think they should know better? They're literally built on war crimes and atrocities.
If you're talking about the holocaust, that's part of the history of Jewish people, not that of Israel. And many Jewish people do criticize Israel for its war crimes, precisely because of the holocaust. Israel is not the same as the Jewish people, and conflating the two is actually kind of antisemitic.
So, I believe the same thing, of course. But I think it's worth taking a moment to think about what we base those beliefs on. For me personally, it's based almost exclusively on what I read / see in the news, and maybe a stray meme here or there. Posts like OP make me wonder to what extent my beliefs are justified. Because the post is entirely correct, right? For the same exact thing, the news media will use one term when it's the bad guys doing it, and another term when the good guys are doing it. The war crimes that the US was committing in Iraq were called collateral damage at the time (and they were grievous, we're talking the act of disappearing people, torture of thousands, murdering hundreds of thousands with cluster bombs and napalm, bombing hospitals, cutting off water to entire cities, truly heinous and extensive). Collateral damage. There were headlines in mainstream media calling the invasion "Operation Iraqi freedom". In contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was immediately (and rightly) called out as such, as well as their war crimes. I wonder to what extent my opinion of Russia is actually influenced by these differences in terminology and reporting. I don't think I'm immune to propaganda.
Why would you want to create an echo chamber? I genuinely don't get it, it's the internet, if you encounter an opinion you disagree with, literally just close the tab and it's gone
I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole thing. But I did try to find a section supporting what you say, and sure, it talks about affective polarization, but it doesn't show anywhere that this leads to people voting irrationally in the sense of voting against their own material interests, as far as I can see. Is there any section you're referring to specifically?
Ah I think I understand what you're trying to say, and I think I'm in agreement. So indeed the electorate is economically progressive, but there is no party on the ballot which represents progressive policies, and hence, by definition, one's policy preferences have a very loose relationship who you vote for.
I have not been quiet. The writing's on the wall. First undocumented immigrants, and the democrats are going after trans people next, and I can't stand it.
Sorry, I misread your comment, I think I read first "they" as "to" or something. I agree with you, deleting my comment.
That connection is much less loose if you consider how right wing the democrats have gotten over the years. And beyond that, note that a big part of Harris' loss is that her republican light "I'm basically Nikki Haley" campaign mainly reflects itself in people not voting for her. The statistics you mention (or the polls you base your comment on, not sure where it's coming from) are presumably talking about voters, not the electorate. Harris' inability to mobilize her base is the problem here, not republicans voting republican.
Thank you for mentioning the ACA! It is a perfect example of the democrats campaigning on a progressive cause, and as a result mobilizing their base and beyond to support them enthusiastically. Progressive policies win, and adopting them, as the democrats at least tried in the obamna era, is a recipe for winning elections.
Now regarding fracking and the border wall, I really think you need to talk to Harris' people and the current regime, because they have not gotten the memo that their support is reluctant. During their debate, Harris and Trump were yelling over each other to show who's more pro-fracking. Four years ago such a climate change denialist stance would've been unthinkable for the dem candidate four years ago. That does not sound like reluctance to me.
Then the border wall. Please think back to how for example the Clinton and Biden campaigns talked about it. The messaging was very simple: the border wall is inhumane, this country was built on immigration, and even beyond that the wall would be ineffective for obvious reasons. The biden campaign was a bit more about the latter, but still. Now, Harris refers to undocumented immigrants as "illegal immigrants", completely joins in on the false narrative that undocumented immigrants bring with them a lot of crime (which is categorically false, citizens by far outrank undocumented immigrants in violent crime per capita) and brags about her strong border policies. This is a core part of her messaging that came back in town halls, debates, and interviews. You cannot just ignore this or expect the electorate not to notice. Again, please think back to what the dem campaigns used to be like four and eight years ago. This kind of stance was rightly ridiculed and rightly vilified. Beyond just the messaging, there's what the current regime is actually doing: the border wall is still being built (again: ridiculed and vilified, rightly so, and you know this), and there are more children in cages at the border than there were under Trump.
And beyond that, the republican candidate was able to position himself as the pro peace candidate next to "most lethal fighting force in the world" Harris! So on this the democrat messaging was actually even more right wing than that of the republicans! They are absolutely sprinting to the right, and denying so is completely ahistorical.
That is indeed what the chart indicates.
Universal health care used to be something that was at least mentioned during campaigns, now not so anymore. Fracking, inhumane border policies to keep those crazed illegal immigrants out, explicit support for genocide; these are far right policies, and the dems are falling over themselves to support it. Every cycle they move further right.
That's actually false. When it comes to policy preferences, the actual electorate swings pretty far left compared to the right wing and far right parties they can choose between. Universal health care, parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wage all enjoy broad and firm popular support, and neither party is even talking about this.
Biden was your hero? When? Why?