Trump ropes Tulsi Gabbard for debate prep, in hopes of having a fighting chance against Harris
I have absolutely no idea why you keep insisting that I like genocide (or Israel buying candidates?). It makes it pointless to talk to you because you are attacking points of view that have nothing to do with what I think. I just don't want to have an extensive argument about what it is that I believe with someone telling me, no, you don't, you believe this other thing instead. That's the reason I have generally given up on talking to you; I'm not sure what I was thinking just now. Mostly I was just trying to help you understand this article.
You asked a perfectly fair question though which I will answer -- here's a poll about the Americans' feelings about the war. How you ask the questions and what questions you ask and how you tee them up make a pretty significant difference to what people say, but that one seems pretty honestly organized and comprehensive, and they're transparent about what exactly they asked. 34% say the way Israel is fighting the "war" is unacceptable, 38% say it's acceptable, 26% say they're not sure.
I think that attitude is because they're profoundly confused about what is happening in Gaza because of our atrocious media, not that 38% of Americans understand that it's a genocide and want Israel to be doing that. I only summarized as "fine with genocide" because I thought they were fine with aid to Israel (which a lot of them don't understand the implications of)... I have now learned from reading this that they don't. The little four-quadrants chart shows that if you limit it to people who say "yes" or "no" about military aid to Israel, you get 64% "no." Holy shit. That's way higher than I thought.
So, they can still, but the point of the article is that it's becoming less and less true over time. AIPAC seems to have picked on the weakest candidates and not made an attempt to challenge some of their most vocal critics.
The American electorate is still fine with genocide, but the minority that doesn't like it is steadily growing and has become bigger than I think a lot of old-school political people realize.
TL;DR they went after people who were already vulnerable, and didn't attempt to challenge people who were threatening Israel's interests but also had strong prospects going into their primaries. They seem to a certain extent to have spent money in races where the incumbents were already facing a tough fight, so they could claim they were responsible if they did turn out to lose. You'll notice Summer Lee, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are still around, and winning by 20+ point margins.
They scared
Which cult?
Honestly the whole thing that she "eviscerated" her in the debate (as the New York Times put it) is a bunch of horseshit.
Here's the exchange. I think Harris was a little taken aback because it was at least 50% complete fabrications, and that's harder to deal with in a debate setting than in a prosecutorial setting. It's fair to say she handled it a little poorly and Gabbard did a good job at landing the dishonest attacks. But most of what it accomplished, at the end of the day, was to accelerate the putting of those lies into the public discourse in a big way as talking points, alongside the idea that if anyone in Harris's office was prosecuting people who broke the law at the time, that represents a fair reason to attack Harris today because obviously what she should have been doing was letting them go and instructing every prosecutor in California to do the same, and that wouldn't have caused any problems.
I have no idea, and people do do some ignorant shit in the name of protests sometimes, but I’m just waiting to hear that this was either (a) some kind of horseshit exaggeration of an underlying reality that bears only a vague resemblence to what the Jewish students are saying happened, or else (b) a false flag.
They did. Everyone just ignored it.
I am getting the strong impression that my attempts to engage in good faith are wasted on you
Good luck with your talking points I guess
here's an article i read not too long ago from a reputable organization that proves that this is literally true
Yes. It was true in October and November of 2023, and then it stopped being true as domestic production fell from the peak it achieved in those months. Pretty sure I touched on this.
Your link is actually a really good overview of a lot of the issues involved, why this is still a massive problem whatever level of "progress" has been made, and the successes and failures of the current administration. Like I said, if you're up for a fact based discussion, that sounds great. It sounds like maybe you are not though. Like you didn't even seem to be aware that both of our arguments give the same date for the peak; you offered the October 2023 article as a sort of counterargument for me saying the peak was November 2023...
the policies are put in place to guarantee american hegemony and it doesn't matter if it's the chinese or the americans that will continue to fuck over the world for their own interests; i need these green products to continue earning a living in this country and so do many other people.
This is a fascinatingly specific type of non-answer to what I asked you. I asked whether climate-friendly policies that don't directly impact China were of interest to you. It kinda sounds like the answer is "no"...
nice cherry picking
Focusing on working class wages is not cherry-picking. I care more about what happens to working-class wages than I do about overall wages (although, it's also relevant that the biggest decline that I could find for overall wages relative to inflation was 3 percentage points). Doesn't that seem like a good thing to focus on? Or no?
this one is literally in recent living memory and so easy to find on google that it's crystal clear you're sealioning.
Yeah. Biden used to be much more conservative; he was part of that whole Clinton revolution of right-wing Democrats that was so horrifying in the 1990s. I didn't expect all that much out of him and then he somehow wound up being this super-progressive president, by the standards of Washington, and the Democratic congress more or less (with some fuckin HUGE asterisks on that it's true) went along with it. I was surprised. We need more of that; he was, of course, only progressive by the fairly low standards of Washington.
But it's still weird to me that you're clinging to the talking points when I'm clearly open to the conversation. IDK. Good luck I guess. You're giving me a chance to air out some of the factual details and expand on them, so I'm fine with talking about it even if you don't seem like you can really make sense of what I'm saying.
Fuck the DNC; on that we can agree
then why did you use it as an example that democrats have changed?
You are aware that "the Democrats" are not a monolith; that they have multiple people and even multiple subgroups within them? I used Bernie Sander's almost-successful candidacy as an example. The group of Democrats that kneecapped his presidency, I don't like, no. Replacing those jerks sounds great.
Yeah. I agree with queermunist about the inaccuracy of using the lower bound as if it was the estimate, which almost all of the media is currently doing. 😢
Tell them I love them
we're literally at the highest peak of fossil fuel generation in recorded history
Not literally true; the most recent figures I've seen make it look like US field production of crude oil has been going down since November 2023. But you sort of have a point as regards continued extraction going up and up, which is a problem. If anything I am saying sounds like "and that's why everything is fine and we don't need to reduce anything else at this point," I am not saying that.
There's a huge amount of the impact of the Democrats' action in the last 4 years which is not simply extraction, though. Here's a summary of the estimate of the impact, and here's a followup about how it's been going.
If you want to have a conversation about how the law is working in practice, which is based on analysis instead of on talking points, then sure we can do that. But I feel like the direction of "and that's why it doesn't matter who is president" (if that is something that would argue -- not putting words in your mouth, just getting to the heart of the matter) will be incompatible with almost any conceivable fact based analysis of what's going on.
and using tariffs to block truly affordable green energy products
Faaaascinating
So you're super upset about the tariffs on Chinese EVs, but you don't really care about other aspects of recent legislation regardless of their impact on the landscape? Do I have that right?
wages across the board have not kept up with the cost of living
Depends on how you measure. This is the first result I came up with when looking into it -- however, there's an important aspect of it that that doesn't delve into. Working class wages rose by about 32% during that period, unadjusted -- meaning that yes inflation ate up 20 percentage points of that gain, but also, the poorest Americans actually saw wages go up by a massive amount even under the punishing 2022 inflation. That, to me, is notable, and highly unusual even for a Democratic president (because yes they are corporate friendly scum quite a lot of the time; on that we can agree). No? I'm not bothered that tech workers at the top of the scale lost 3% of their wages relative to inflation, if you pick the exact right start and end points.
biden literally created the student loan problem
Fuckin citation needed lol
democrats went out of their way to block the only truly socialist for president both times
True dat
Fuck the DNC; on that we can agree
it used to be project 1980 and it has updated every single election year with both democrats and republicans enabling almost 75% of it so far.
40% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2030, income inequality dropping for the first time in IDK how long, working-classes wages rising even outpacing historic inflation, unions domestic manufacturing reforms on policing IDK what else, student loan forgiveness by hundreds of billions of dollars. And all of that was after the Republicans blocked like 80% of what Biden tried to do.
GTFO with your "both sides." You're actually 100% right as it was applied to the Clinton era and how it put us into this mess in the first place, but IDK if you've noticed that several decades have passed since then and the Democrats have changed substantially. They almost nominated a socialist for president, for one.
Try 10%
The Lancet estimated 186,000 dead which would be 8%, but noted that there's no real way to know. Since they were a little conservative with their guesswork and about 6 weeks have passed since then, I think 10% dead out of Gaza's population of 2 million is highly likely by now.
Presumably they don't post the ones where it works and the drone crashes
I suspect it is useless just because of the pace of technological development on the Ukraine side vs. the Russian side, but just the existence of some videos where the EW isn't working doesn't mean it's not working.
Yeah, 100% agree
Lemmy has a sizable, vocal minority
This part I think is the key portion
Seeing this picture of JD Vance made it all make sense.
The suits, the apparent eyeliner, the sudden radical changes of viewpoint, the book, the sucking up to fascists as long as they will keep paying his bills and tell him he’s acceptable. All of it. It just kind of all clicked into focus.
No hate for people who were big and awkward in high school. It’s all good, and you don’t have to grow up into the modern monstrosity that is Vance just because this is where you started. He’s actually clearly smarter than a lot of the people in that orbit. He should know better; that’s one of the things that made it all weird and hard to understand. I’m just saying that seeing where he started makes it make sense all the little incongruities about where he ended up, as of now.
Here's the context for the thousands separator thing. They seem willfully committed to pretending not to understand the question or realize why it might be something someone would ask about, in a way that seems like a very unlikely way for a non-shill user to respond. To me.
Here's another one where the user is posting a pretty steady tide of propaganda (like, literally, videos from channels which are featured on rt.com) and not wanting to answer questions about what they're posting. I get that the questions aren't phrased real friendly-like, but they're not like random or senseless questions, and the user doesn't seem fazed at all by them or interested at all in the idea of demonstrating that they're posting in good faith.
Both race and the circumstances of the crime are going to impact their being charged as an adult, and the sentence they receive. The existence of racism doesn’t mean that the circumstances of the case will now have 0 bearing on their punishment - it’s not one or the other; it is both.
Like I say, the system is racist, yes. It feels like you just seized on an opportunity to lecture about racism and deny the existence of literally any other factor being possible except for race. It’s childish and reductive and hostile to things that are necessary for understanding the world. Stop doing that. This will be my last message to you on this topic.
My assumption that the trend in this article is based on racism is because that is absolutely a thing that happens.
I could say that people order vanilla ice cream more than chocolate because of racism, and then if someone said that wasn’t true I could cite a bunch of statistics about how racism is absolutely a thing that happens and get mad at them for denying the impact of racism, and it would make an equal amount of sense as your argument here.
Nashville had already decriminalized weed as of 2016. I only find one other case (Houston) where it was a prosecutor making a policy decision not to prosecute weed, ahead of the rest of the government. Honestly, just read the rest of the article you cited -- it matters that a lot of the rest of the city government was on board for it, but it still left a little bit of a confusing way to go about it even after decriminalization, which the chief of police among some other people pointed out, along with the idea that yes weed should be legal so maybe it's a good thing.
Left unsaid in among all of that is that selective enforcement by police and prosecutors in almost every case works out, in practice even up to the modern day, to be racist selective enforcement. Honestly it's better for the legislature just to make it legal. I'm not trying to throw cold water on any prosecutor who wants to take the initiative to do a good thing if they can make sure it'll work out right, but generally, the prosecutorial portion of the government isn't where you want to be making your creative departures from the law the way the legislators wrote it down.