US Vetoes UN Resolution for Ceasefire in Gaza
chaogomu @ chaogomu @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 978Joined 2 yr. ago
chaogomu @ chaogomu @kbin.social
Posts
1
Comments
978
Joined
2 yr. ago
WW2, we only joined because Japan attacked. Otherwise, there were elements of the US population that were cheering for Hitler.
Or failed by diverting almost all the border guards over to the West Bank to oppress the Palestinians there.
But we need to how they feel about that second part...
The official policy on Hamas was to just sort of ignore them in favor of stealing land in the West Bank.
How about this one?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/20/gaza-church-strike-saint-porphyrius/
It has a quote from the IDF saying it was their bomb, but claiming that it struck a "Hamas Stronghold" and "damaged a nearby Church Wall".
For the Hospital bombing...
The TLDR is that it's not enough visible damage to have been an Israeli bomb. The entire article is worth a read, Bellingcat actually does video and image analysis to figure out what likely happened.
As for the church bombing, Israel has taken responsibility for it, but are quibbling on the damage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/20/gaza-church-strike-saint-porphyrius/
The Israel Defense Forces said in an emailed statement that a strike targeting a Hamas control center “damaged the wall of a church in the area” and that it is “aware of reports on casualties” and is reviewing the incident.
I explained it several times, then linked to videos, and websites, and scholarly articles that all explain it better because the guy I'm arguing with doesn't seem to want to understand.
Hell, his own preferred third party makes voting reform a priority, because otherwise they cannot win.
Vote splitting is just a way of describing the phenomenon where it is harder to start a third party in a FPTP system.
You misspelled impossible. See Durvurger's Law.
See video, after video, after video.
And a load of different sites.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Duvergers-law
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27slaw
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09720-65
We can then divert into Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, but that's a bit outside this conversation.
The point being, Durvurger laid this all out. Plurality voting will strongly preference two-party dominance.
As to local politics. Again, you run into the two party system. I will admit that it's not impossible to win as an independent in local races, but the fact that we as a species are very team orientated makes it harder.
The Lochner Era might have been worse than the pre-civil war era.
To know that the Lochner Era was like, just imagine this court in 10-years.
The Supreme Court during the Lochner era has been described as "play[ing] a judicially activist but politically conservative role".[5] The Court sometimes invalidated state and federal legislation that inhibited business or otherwise limited the free market, including minimum wage laws, federal (but not state) child labor laws, regulations of banking, insurance and transportation industries.[5] The Lochner era ended when the Court's tendency to invalidate labor and market regulations came into direct conflict with Congress's regulatory efforts in the New Deal.
The Lochner court struck down laws that would have lessened the impact of the 1929 stock market crash, and also struck down efforts to shorten the depression.
FDR flat out said that if they didn't knock it off, he would appoint as many justices as needed to undo the damage.
This current bill is maybe not the way to do it. Just add a few more seats (13 Total, to match the number of appeals circuits), and then maybe name the Federalist Society a hate group and ineligible for federal service in any capacity.
Who do they harm?
Their supporters. You've not been reading.
And vote splitting is fucking horrible. A vote for a third party under First Past the Post is a vote against your own interests. Even at the local level. If the election features more than two candidates, the majority will often get screwed over by FPtP.
That's why it's so important to change the voting system to one that doesn't actively punish you for supporting who you want. STAR is great for that. It's the best voting system designed to date. It's also supported by the Forward Party on the front page of the site.
The other options are still better than the horrible option of FPtP. That said, I'm not a fan of RCV (Ranked Choice, aka, Instant Runnoff). RCV shares many of the same problems as FPtP while not actually fixing the vote splitting issue. It also introduces some other wrinkles that are just bad.
I've explained the spoiler effect of Durvurger's Law and linked to great resources, but again, under First Past the Post, a vote for a third party is almost indistinguishable from a vote for the ideologically opposite main party candidate.
In 1992, Ross Perot ran the single most successful third party campaign in US history. If he had not run, George H. W. Bush would have likely been reelected.
In 2000, Ralph Nader ran an average performing campaign and scored just over 1% of the vote in Florida, and that alone made sure that George W. Bush was elected.
Because under First Past the Post, a vote for a third party candidate is a not just a wasted vote, it actually helps your least liked candidate win. Because if you had held your nose and voted for the lesser of two evils, the lesser would have won.
Again, if you want actual change, it's only possible through electoral reform. Hell, even the stupid Forward Party that you linked to is pushing for electoral reform, because that's the only chance Yang has of being elected to anything outside of maybe a mayoral race.
I personally recommend this group. The Equal Vote Coalition.
Their site explains the spoiler effect in pictures. (calling it vote-splitting)
Okay, you're not understanding the simple fact that third parties are actually harmful under First Past the Post.
You are giving people bad advice.
This is an older video that explains it quite well.
The concept talked about is Duverger's Law
Here's a scholarly article about it.
As to passing voting reform, it does happen. RCV is gaining (and losing) ground, and Approval has been used in a few elections now. STAR is just better. It's newer, so doesn't have as much of a push behind it, but there are plenty of advocates. Want to make a real difference? Advocate for voting reform.
Fun fact, under First Past the Post voting, supporting a third party is the absolute worst thing you can do.
It's called the spoiler effect, and it often results in the absolute worst candidate winning an election.
If you support a third party that is loosely aligned with one of the major parties, you can end up in a situation where candidate A gets 40%, and your third party candidate, whose platform is closest to A, gets an astounding 15%, and they both lose to Candidate B, the most hated of both A voters and Third Party voters because B got 45%.
The classic example is the 1992 presidential election, where Clinton won with 43% of the vote.
The 2000 election is another example where Bush won with 307 votes, far less than the 97488 votes that Ralph Nader got,
the recount was stopped early so that Bush would win.
The point being, you cannot have a third party until you change the voting system to actually support third parties. And that means a cardinal voting system, such as STAR (my current favorite)
Political parties are not mentioned in the constitution.
That document does need an amendment however.
The issue comes from First Past the Post voting.
There's math that shows that over a series of elections, FPtP naturally forces the creation of a two party system.
Every ordinal voting system falls prey to this issue to a greater or lesser extent, but there are cardinal voting systems that are completely immune.
My current favorite is STAR, it's dead simple. You rate each candidate on a scale of zero to five stars. Zero being the worst, five being the best.
To count the votes, you just add up the star count for each candidate. You don't need to average the count, but I'm sure that news media would.
The spectate is you take the two candidates with the highest star count and put them into an automatic runoff. You look at each ballot cast, and if either of the two candidates is preferred on that ballot (higher star rating) then the ballot goes to them. If there is no preference between the two, the vote is counted as No Preference and reported in the final tally.
The IDF has launched missiles at hospitals and schools in the past, and then claimed that they were "Hamas strongholds".
They have no credibility. A fact that Hamas is actively exploiting. Not that Hamas has any credibility, either.
Every country does some level of industry subsidy. So it's kind of baked into capitalism now. And, technically, has been since the beginning.
Netanyahu's political party, the Likud, were partially founded by members of Lehi. Including the first Likud Prime Minister.
Lehi was a Zionist Terrorist organization in Mandatory Palestine. Their main operations were political assassinations of any leader who supported the British, or opposed their ideal of a Jewish ethno-state. This included Jewish and Palestinian leaders.
They also took part in a few massacres of Palestinians, including raping women before killing them.
But the meat of this tangent is what they did during WW2. See, they really hated the British. So much so that they made multiple overtures to join WW2 on the side of the Nazis. They kept trying to join in until 1942. (and only stopped when the founder of Lehi died)
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia talking about Lehi;
According to Yaacov Shavit, professor at the Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University, articles in Lehi publications contained references to a Jewish "master race", contrasting the Jews with Arabs who were seen as a "nation of slaves".[47] Sasha Polakow-Suransky writes that "Lehi was also unabashedly racist towards Arabs. Their publications described Jews as a master race and Arabs as a slave race." Lehi advocated mass expulsion of all Arabs from Palestine and Transjordan,[48] or even their physical annihilation.[49]
Netanyahu's early political career was directly mentored by former members of Lehi. It's why he sabotaged the peace talks in the 90s.
No, I want them to actually dig in and figure out what really happened.
Journalism should be the pursuit of truth, not just parroting two opposing arguments.
Honestly, I'd prefer my news sources to do more than just play "he said, she said".
Doing that, and then pretending to have no bias, helps no one.
Also, that game of "he said, she said" is actually harmful. After all, sometimes that contrary voice that they report on is batshit crazy.
So they took a modern adaption (that really suffers due to being a modern adaption) and set an episode in the timeframe where the original was set?
It has, and yet this specific case they're siding against the powerful corporate interests.
Likely siding with other corporate interests.
Well, that and Japan was actively murdering massive amounts of people in China.
It was a calculated strategy to stop supporting the Japanese genocide machine.
The Rape of Nanjing made international news. That turned the average US voter against Japan, but the embargo (not a blockade) started after Japan invaded French Indochina (Vietnam) in 1940.
The Embargo was just the US saying that no US owned oil would be sold to Japan.