would_be_appreciated @ would_be_appreciated @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

125

Joined

11 mo. ago

Salmon (although there are pockets of people who still pronounce the “l”)

See, this is a weird one, because I don't know anybody who pronounces the "L" here, but calm, balm, or psalm you would.

Prevent substantial wealth differentials in the first place.

This article presumably intentionally totally fails to address the fact that you could prevent this by stopping further climate change. It takes continued global warming as a foregone conclusion and is just like, "Welp, how can we deal with the impending hellscape the wealthy and powerful are creating?"

This has actually been shown through studies a number of times!

Plenty of correlative studies that show the left associated with positive and the right associated with negative: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2011.0268

But also some causal studies where people are more conservative when they're scared or more progressive when they feel safe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2315

They really grabbed us by the Purcell.

I don't think they've released the text nor a comprehensive list of what it includes. They've only alluded to a few things, like the occupation.

This AP article says as much when it says, "Blinken, who is back in the region this week, said Monday that Israel had agreed to the proposal without saying what it entails." https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/why-is-israel-demanding-control-over-2-gaza-corridors-in-the-cease-fire-talks/

Al-Jazeera and similar have all said some variation of that as far as I've seen.

On first read, it gives an understanding that both sides are willing to approach a deal - but lack trust in the process and the mediators ability to coerce the other side to actually commit and follow through.

I don't think this is a bad reading of the article in vacuum, but I don't think it's a fair reading of the situation because AP intentionally or unintentionally has left quite a bit out. Hamas agreed to a US-backed ceasefire back in May that Israel refused. There was plenty of trust on both sides that they'd get what was in the deal, but Israel didn't want that particular deal at that particular time.

What's happening now is Hamas wants Israel to remove their troops and generally stop killing Palestinians, in addition to the other parts of the deal. Israel refuses to put this in writing, saying they'll stop killing people for now, but they're going to leave troops behind to occupy the area - but eventually they'll remove those troops. You're right that Hamas doesn't trust Israel's going to remove those troops, and I think that's entirely reasonable given how the "bridging proposal" is a variation of May's proposal, but striking out things like withdrawing troops. Seems like if that's those are the major changes they're making to the written proposal, they probably don't plan on following through.

But it's also entirely unreasonable for Israel to strike that in the first place. The Palestinians don't want Israel to be an occupying force. There's nothing they can do about the civilians continuing to settle and take their land, but at the very least they're asking for the additional soldiers that have invaded the land in the last year to get out while they're not actively killing Palestinians.

On top of that, Israel's occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah crossing is in violation of the Camp David agreements with Egypt. It's really difficult to trust you can make a deal with somebody who's currently not following the agreement they have with your mediator.

This is a helpful article that explains the original deal in more detail than most people want to know: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas

This is actually really helpful clarification, I did just miss some of that. It's no wealth tax, but it's better than nothing.

Nobody would be happier than me to see that happen, but seeing how nobody's ever done something like that before I have my doubts. Can't remember the last Democrat that actually got more radical than the platform they ran on. Certainly wasn't anybody in the last 50 years.

"I believe I'm the first journalist to be arrested under this provision of the Terrorism Act. I feel that this is a political persecution and hampers my ability to work as a journalist," he said in his post.

Honestly, it's surprising if he's the first, but at least it's not (yet) something journalists can expect!

Terrorising .. with truth?

Almost like the British were the terrorists the whole time.

The commondreams article says "endorsement of taxes on ultra-wealthy individuals and large corporations" - your linked article says she's raising the corporate tax rate not even up to what it was before Trump. So, sure, I guess that technically counts as the "large corporations" part, but it doesn't meet the "ultra-wealthy individuals" language or the "billionaires tax" claim in the headlines.

I love that she says she wants to raise it somewhat. I love that she wants to give tax breaks to working class people. I don't love that this makes it out to be something it's not.

Considering these are bribery charges and "investigators found $480,000 in cash and more than $100,000 worth of gold bars" just at his home, I think he has plenty of money.

It's always amazing to me when Republicans pick bigotry over profits. They pick profits over family, friends, lives, environment, religion, you name it - feels like profits are king. And then they pull shit like this, and I'm just astonished at how much cruelty reigns supreme.

Strom Thurmond was already 53 when he did his 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I'm convinced he still could've done it at 100 years old when he left office fueled by nothing but hate.

Correct if I'm wrong here, but is this article just "Economist comments on something it has been claimed the Harris campaign team said, but is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in writing or in speeches"?

If she planned on taxing billionaires, she'd be shouting it from the rooftops. That's a popular policy. It's not going to be something she keeps in her back pocket and then when she's president goes SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS. Not that she could do it by EO anyway, but honestly, this is so far from a reality it just barely qualifies as news.

It's been 318 days since October 7, 2023, and a very rough estimate is around 40,000 fatalities, mostly civilians. On average, that's 126 dead per day since Israel started this attack. So 35 dead is actually a pretty merciful day.

tax of 1.7% to 3.5% to the richest 0.5% of the country's households

We could try something more like a 95% wealth tax and really fix some problems.

I like politics and news - most of my subscribed is some variant of that. There's just so much more to politics and news than Trump, and as long as you're not in the cult there's not even anything interesting or engaging that he says or does. It's just a circlejerk of "Trump bad" and I don't understand how people aren't tired of it - or maybe they think they're helping?

Came here to say this - I'm new to Lemmy, and I feel like there's this overwhelming tidal wave of Trump posts here, even moreso than Reddit or other social media. I get it, he's a shit human being. But maybe unless he actually does something, we don't have to talk about him?

Justice Antonin Scalia spoke for the 7-2 majority and said the federal law requires states to “accept and use” the standard federal form in federal elections.

Scalia looking like a good guy here is blowing my fucking mind. Dissents were Thomas and Alito, so we know where this is going next.