So this isn’t about actual gamers, this about bad actors looking for chuds to recruit through games, which is not a new concept. It used to be chat rooms, and then forums, then social media, now games (as many have social features).
I mean the US military, among others, have been using gaming to recruit people already.
Officially, the military does not recruit anyone under age 17. In this case, “recruit” means the formal process of signing a legally binding agreement to enlist. The military does, however, advertise to and interact directly with minors for the purposes of military recruitment.
I was in the Australian airforce cadets from 12 until 18 at which point i went to join the airforce but got am apprenticeship at the same time that paid more.
Someone tried recruiting my sister and a couple of her Special Olympics teammates into the Marines in Rec Room. I got on my sister’s mic and told the dude to fuck off and to stop preying on obviously vulnerable people. He was so pushy with his recruitment, that he was making my sister uncomfortable. She asked him to stop and he didn’t. After telling the dude off, I advised my sister and her teammates to try a different game for a bit. It was disgusting to see this dude try to get people with intellectual disabilities to literally throw their lives away for a country that’s constantly fucking them over.
Anyone that’s surprised that Trump would make matters 100x worse for Palestine is hopefully re-evaluating their media-intake
That much was clear from when he was president - he basically put Hamas with their backs to the wall by destroying any hope on a two state solution during his term…
Seriously, for all the “genocide joe” rhetoric I see here and other sites, it’s abundantly clear the other option is "He’s weak, Israel should be allowed to ‘finish the job’ ".
Voters, do you prefer a level headed voice trying to minimize palestinian casualties, or would you prefer Israel get the all-clear to steamroll Gaza indiscriminately, likely annexing it wholesale? Very clear choices.
The answer from the people saying “Genocide Joe” will be “But BOTHSIDES” and “I refuse to vote for…” because they’re privileged enough or deluded enough to think they’ll be safe from the consequences of a Trump administration.
I think you’re ignorant of history and naive. I remember being like you. Then I realized what a shitty country we live in and how powerless I am to stop a trillion dollar war machine. Now I’m just sad.
the mental gymnastics to twist "I refuse to vote for genocide" into a question of privilege
i feel like the real privilege is "not being bombed to death", did you check your "not being bombed to death" privilege recently?
some of the most vocal "genocide joe" rhetoric i've seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
some of the most vocal “genocide joe” rhetoric i’ve seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
Cool, either they’re not taking the election seriously or they’re letting their own self-destructive urges chart the course for millions of other people, way better.
People who think that letting the greater evil win is some sort of moral stand are fucking beyond help.
the absolute clown show of starting off talking about privilege, and finishing off talking about how those without it don't know how to vote properly because they don't agree with you
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
and finishing off talking about how those without it don’t know how to vote properly because they don’t agree with you
Yes, sorry for saying that fascism is actually a bad thing to vote for, I guess that’s too much for me to say. You vote for fascism to your heart’s content. Better?
sorry are we talking about my vote now, or the people who you pretended to care about a minute ago?
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
sorry are we talking about my vote now, or the people who you pretended to care about a minute ago?
The people I care about being… me and the rest of the vulnerable demographics in the US, for whom a fascist regime would be ruinous? Yes, it’s kind of important that one votes AGAINST the fascist. The two things, fascism losing the election, and people voting against fascism, are very closely related. Sorry if that’s news to you.
weird how you opened this talking about the privilege of others and now it's somehow boiled down to being about you
and the rest of the vulnerable demographics in the US
some of the most vocal "genocide joe" rhetoric i've seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
kind of wild that we're still going for the pantsuit lady strategy of "just blame the voters that don't like her" as if we've learned absolutely nothing from 2016
i guess if we just intentionally misrepresent criticism of biden then said critics will be forced to vote for him
let me know how that works out, i guess
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
weird how you opened this talking about the privilege of others and now it’s somehow boiled down to being about you
What an absolutely bizarre take.
some of the most vocal “genocide joe” rhetoric i’ve seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
Didn’t I already mention that voting for fascism is actually bad? That engaging in self-destructive behavior for oneself and one’s fellow vulnerable demographics is… bad even if you’re one of those demographics?
I don’t know why “Voting for fascism is bad” is such a hard concept for you to grasp.
The way the same phrases are constantly woven into the posts sure make it seem like either a clear Trollfarm account that got the instructions to drop those phrases or like an ai bot that got caught in a loop
level headed voice trying to minimize palestinian casualties
Biden isn’t doing that though, you can’t send someone the bombs they’re using to cause those casualties and say you’re trying to minimize it. Minimizing Palestinian casualties would be using all tools at your disposal to make Palestinian casualties the as low as possible.
The question is would you rather a president who openly facilitates the slaughter of Palestinians or pretends to oppose the slaughter of Palestinians while facilitating it.
The answer is it doesn’t fucking matter, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.
The answer is it doesn’t fucking matter, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.
So if there is going to be a drought anyway and people are dying in a city no matter what you do and one politician says that showers and even using the Bathtub are okay but we should stop using water for the pools and gardens and another is just giving everyone the go to use whatever they want then “both are bad” because the first option is not perfect is just childish
By not choosing and enabling the 2nd option you are making matters 100 times worse…
They both suck. But one is for sure getting the job. Which one do you want? You have to pick one. You can protest it and hope to change it, but nothing like that can happen in time, you will be stuck with one of these two people. Please at least try to pick the one that has less terrible things on their resume and then actually protest for proper change. If you pick the wrong guy, you also won’t be able to protest for any kind of change.
That’s how Trump won in the first place. You cannot message your way to winning an election. This is not a problem with voters, it’s a problem with democrats passing right-wing policy, and can only be solved by the democrats.
If you pick the wrong guy, you also won’t be able to protest for any kind of change.
You don’t get to say that while cops are beating the shit out of students for protesting. You shouldn’t be pissed at me, you should be pissed at the guy doing things that lose the election.
Cry about messaging all you want, that’s how the election system in the US works.
One of these two people will be president this time next year. Only one of them has promised to be a dictator and attempted to forcibly stay in power after losing an election.
You really don’t understand what I’m saying do you?
No amount of messaging or vote shaming or self delusion can override the dogshit policies Biden has enacted trying to appeal to “moderate republicans”.
But if you learned nothing from 2016, I’m sure in November you’ll blame everyone but the people with power.
do you prefer a level headed voice trying to minimize palestinian casualties, or would you prefer Israel get the all-clear to steamroll Gaza indiscriminately, likely annexing it wholesale? Very clear choices.
Would greatly prefer the former, but unfortunately no such candidate was on the stage.
There was one guy lying about whether Israel wants to end the genocide while sidestepping the fact that he’s the one supplying the weapons and political cover.
And then there was the guy telling the truth for the first time in years by pointing out that Israel very much DO want to keep the hostilities going…and then bemoaning that the other war criminal on the stage wasn’t being gleefully bloodthirsty in public about it.
It was unrealistic but there was some hope still left - he buried that hope for good though and now Hamas is doing whatever they can to bring that discussion back on the table…
President Carter explained exactly the situation most Americans are now starting to understand decades ago, the interviewer then asked him why the American people weren’t outraged by this. He said
I had kids that would do this at my school too. they’d sell them at a loss, technically - see, it was their parents money paying for it, but they would get paid cash by kids for discounted food items. it was essentially a way to launder the money your parent gave the school for your lunches into usable money, with a little bit of a loss yes, but at a big gain in versatility - for any kid, cash in hand is way better than dollar values in a school lunch system.
but I’d much rather have this “fraud” (of the kids’ parents maybe lol) than kids go hungry.
and this has nothing to do with the free school lunches either. those were always fixed meals given to you - not “lunch money dollars” you could choose to use as you see fit. so this is just a bunch of greedy old assholes wanting to starve some kids.
Fuck the genocide deniers. Block all the info you want. Those of us who are sane, and aren’t bought by AIPAC money see through it all. All your attempts are transparent and ultimately futile. We know what Israel is doing, what info we do have clearly paints them as genocidal. Innocents dont murder journalists. Your reputation is shredded, Israel. Hopefully we can stay mad at this and AIPAC long enough to end lobbying. Destroying a lot of the incentive to be a complete piece of shit.
If Hamas killed 4 on Oct 7, that puts the ratio at 26:1.
Israel estimates that 1200 were killed on Oct 7.
A recent estimate puts Israel at 34,900 killed.
Thats a ratio of about 29:1. Is that acceptable to you?
I’m doing this not because there is any acceptable level, but to highlight the absurdity of the idea that there even is one. Hamas needs to be held accountable for its crimes. Israel needs, at a level about 29 times more so, also needs to be held accountable for their crimes.
The idea that any level of incidental murder is acceptable is absurdist, and you are a terrible person if you think there is one.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit to the ratio I would be willing to accept to get them back.
Hamas still has hostages captured that day they are tying to use for negotiations.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war that Palestinians are losing. War kills people, and acceptable casualties (enemy, friendly, and even innocents) are literally part of the calculations made by every single country that has ever participated in a war.
And how many hostages does Israel have? Do Palestinians not have the same right, that if their family has been taken hostage, to do anything to get them back?
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
Exactly. This is the fundamental lesson you (the royal “you”; as ‘one’) needed to learn from BLM. The history and legacy of settler colonialism and white supremacy leaves us with inherent and structural biases that means some “lives” are valued higher than others.
When you attack someone stronger than you, it usually does not end well. They can try, but there will be further consequences.
It took a few hundred thousand middle eastern civilians dying after 9/11 before anyone started complaining and even that did not lead to this level of protest.
People are ok with violence if its their country that has been attacked.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit…
So then, when about all those people killed in the process. What about the mothers and children dying? The ones that are not directly involved in this fight either. Do their spouses get the chance for the same level of revenge once they’re killed?
Do I should let them take my family with no consequence because they’re using human shields?
No, my side is strong enough to get them back. Screw the terrorists and those that harbour them. They can try to retaliate, and they can die until they won’t fight back anymore.
People these days seem to think there’s a diplomatic solution for everything. They need to go read a nonfiction history book, because they are currently in the fiction section.
What if you were born in the wrong place and your family got gunned down or buried under rubble because the enemy thought a hostage (or their dead body) was in a building at the end of your street?
You can’t always assume you’re the one who is both on a righteous quest and in possession of superior firepower.
Well, the biggest problem with this situation and using the term “innocent” is that the vast majority of Gazans support Hamas and supported the attack on Oct 7th.
The first thing I’d do is find a dozen people of the same ethnicity as the hostage taker and kill them. Then I’d send in a strike team to grab anyone I believed was affiliated with the hostage taker - coworkers, family members, social media contacts - and imprison them indefinitely. Finally, I’d bulldoze someone’s house. Doesn’t really matter whose. Just to show people I mean business.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war
It’s important to stop for a moment here and take note of the fact that Friedman’s idea wasn’t that we specifically needed to attack Iraq. Friedman didn’t even bother to claim to Charlie Rose that there was, for example, a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, he said that the problem is that “they” needed to see that Americans didn’t care so much about our “stock options and Hummers” that we were unwilling to make sacrifices.
What was the “they,” exactly? Muslim extremists? Muslims in general? The Middle East as a region? Friedman casts a very wide net:
“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house—from Basra to Baghdad—and basically saying:
“Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?: You don’t think we care about our open society? You think this fantasy—we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We coulda hit Saudi Arabia… We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”
How many people are they allowed to kill in retaliation for Oct 7th? Zero? 1:1? 10:1?
Per the Dahiya Doctrine the general rule is 30:1. If a single Israel is injured or killed, the state has the authority to kill up to 30 Palestinians.
Commentators for The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Mondoweiss have noted that the attacks of the Israeli Defense Forces on the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip during the 2023 Hamas-Israel war may constitute an extension of the doctrine. Haaretz reported that IDF had dropped “all restraint” in its war: killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure at an unprecedented rate.
Writing in The Guardian, Paul Rogers of Bradford University argues that Israel’s goal in the 2023 war is to “corral the Palestinians into a small zone in the southwest of Gaza where they can be more easily controlled,” and that the long-term goal is to make clear that Israel “will not stand for any opposition.”
I don’t know if this ventures into conspiracy theory territory or not but in real time, I thought the Iranians had essentially told the U.S. what was coming and to prepare for it because Iran wanted a show and to test Israel’s air defense systems without provoking a war.
When it happened, one of my friends was like, “Great. World War III.” And I said I didn’t think so because Iran announced that they had launched it all as they launched it all. You don’t announce, “Here come some bombs!” to the media when your goal is having them actually land.
That’s not conspiratorial thinking at all, that’s just geopolitical literacy. Your assessment is correct: Iran planned this carefully to avoid causing any major damage. This was pro wrestling.
Which honestly makes it sad to consider that Iran has become the more restrained, rational actor here. The US needs to put Netanyahu on a short leash. He is not worth this.
I wouldn’t call it a wrestling show, but an attempt to prevent two smoking drunks from a bar fight by enabling them to save face. Also the bar is covered in burnable liquor and we are all standing in it while the doors are shut.
This. The “Genocide Joe” cohort doesn’t realize they are falling right into Netanyahu and Trump’s plan. I mean, at least the small number of them who aren’t propagandists in the first place.
I would hold my nose to vote for Biden if my vote really counted, but I will still call him genocide Joe. If he continues down this path, I hope he is forever known as Genocide Joe. Let history know it.
They don’t give a shit because the genocide is already in progress. Also these people are very real, real enough to make an impact on the primaries. You liberals really just can’t help but constantly condescend to anyone who doesn’t do what you want them to.
It’s hilarious watching liberals try to blame their campaign failures on “Russian bots”. It’s always someone else’s fault
Trump pushed US policy much closer to Israel. Biden has been mostly status quo, though leaning away from them which the US has never done before. I need a citation on funding to believe that claim, but regardless they already have republicans in their pocket. They don’t need to spend any more to purchase them.
Man, thanks for listing the sources. I didn’t want to do the work. Yet, you got downvoted for it because they don’t actually want to know the truth. They want to spread a lie.
The first time ever? Why do liberals constantly lie and exaggerate? No one with a brain believes you. Obama leaned away from Israel by actually blowing them off, Biden scolding Netanyahu a couple times while proceeding to give him billions in aid isn’t leaning away from shit.
Obama I think criticized them, but I don’t think there was ever any action behind it. I could be wrong about this but I think that’s the case. That said, Obama never faced a situation like this. He would probably handle it I a way I more agree with, but he’s not president so it doesn’t really matter.
The best part of the “Genocide Joe” cohort is they call him that - despite the fact that he hasn’t committed a genocide - while simultaneously virulently denying the very real and well-documented genocides committed by communist Russia and China.
Ah so despite the fact that you seem to be aware of what an actual genocide is you decide to call Biden that…why, exactly? Because it sounds clever? Because you along with 90% of the rest of the world allowed Donald Trump to lead you down to the level of grown ass adults referring to literally fucking everybody by childish, idiotic nicknames?
I don’t deny there’s a genocide I just have a fucking brain in my skull and am capable of recognizing that Biden isn’t the person responsible for it because I don’t have my opinions spoon-fed to me by Russian bot-farms lol.
Hey if a person goes and murders a bunch of people, and I give him guns wnd money and keep giving him them as he’s still actively murdering people, while also telling everyone else ”If you do anything about this, I will protect him” - would you not say I’m somewhat culpable?
I’m sorry I didn’t realize Joe Biden was in full control of Congress - you know, the part of the government that fucking sets the budget and allocates spending. Do you think he is some kind of dictator? Cuz it sounds like that’s what you expect him to be.
There are fucking Schoolhouse Rock videos that display a more nuanced understanding of how the US government works than you do.
Joe Biden literally bypassed congress twice to give weapons to Israel.
Joe Bidens self appointed foreign secretary defends Israel from retaliation.
Joe Biden as commander in chief shields Israel from retaliation.
Joe Biden uses his own words to say he supports Israel.
Joe Biden uses his government and his position to enable Israel, end of fucking story.
You don’t get to hand wash away his direct and applicable support of Israel and pretend the PotUS is a completely powerless position unable to do anything.
The main point to announce it was so they would get shot down. If they had reached their targets that would be a war they would lose very quickly. This way no harm was done. But now the people in charge in Iran can tell everyone in the country look how we attacked the bad people. Kind of like when north Korea talks a bunch of shit to everyone then launches a missile to no where. They can brag about it in country how they almost fucked up Japan and no one is the wiser because the only news coming in is things they ban see internally. Iranians saw the missles and drones leave their airspace then get told lies about what happened.
They did the same thing back when you guys turned Qassem “Kotlett” Soleimani into a fine paste. Announcing an air strike, notifying the target in advance and declare victory. Noone was killed in their retaliatory attack.
While the Mullahs have fucked up Iran beyond recognition, their handling of crises like this is pretty good.
Hell, we may even be able to make Americans life better at home. Would be an easy way to get votes, but both parties know only a small handful of swing states decide the election, so why bother making things better when we can just spend billions in ads in five states.
If you don’t like how Congress represents you, vote in congressional elections. Democratic congressional election turnout is consistently less than 50%.
Make note of your state election dates and vote for change.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think you mean air. Fish breathe oxygen from the water through their gills. That’s one of the many problems with climate change deoxygenating the ocean.
Minor nitpick: while participating in voting is an important component of politics, I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s the most influential thing you can do. It’s not even the most influential thing you can do if you’re strictly operating in the framework of electoralism.
Volunteering in a campaign, running for office, designing and/or distributing pamphlets. All of these are potentially more effective than voting because you could get more than one vote for your preferred candidate that way.
And that’s just the obvious conventional stuff. If we get into theoretical strategies shit gets wild.
So who do I vote for that will change it? Because my sample ballot only has genocide supporters on it. Am I writing in a name and just hoping the majority of the country writes the same name or what?
Moreover, while a lesser evil is still an evil, we are in a situation where these are the choices we have. By choosing Biden we have a chance to shift the lesser evil towards a greater good. Though four years isn’t a long time I sincerely feel we can make those changes if we just. stop. bickering. Cause fuck me if the Right won’t come together just to nail someone to a cross. Most the rest of us will have heated arguments over whether day old spaghetti is better than fresh.
Don’t you dare. I see you starting to make spaghetti claims, dammit.
Standard voter disengagement advocate response. No suggestions for improvement, just don’t vote. This is how Republicans have been winning for decades. Good on you for calling it out when you see it.
Unless you’re capable of reasoning in which case you’d see that there are only 3 possible outcomes:
vote democrat to reduce the amount of harm done
vote third party and convince literally millions of other people to do so also (very very very unlikely to the point of basically impossibility)
take literally any other action which at worst fully enables Trump and at best remains complicit in him amping up support for slaughtering Palestinians.
Options two and three are the same option in reality. But I know that Extra-Militant-Joffrey is in denial of these facts.
But in all seriousness, Linkerbaan is an obvious bad faith actor. They’re actually campaigning for Trump by trying to get people to not vote for Biden.
Let’s just say for a moment you’re right and Democrats increase harm. Sure, they take Korporate Kampaign Kash (the other KKK), and are always about the donor class, and we can sure hit them on this. They’re feckless, always finding reasons we couldn’t POSSIBLY do Left-Wing priorities, and yeah, I’m pissed about how many times Manchin Lucy-Yanked the football on us this last term. They’d rather please the donor class than us, because, well, frankly, I can’t pay for an all-expenses paid junket to exotic places with exotic food and exotic people quite the same way as Mr. Gates and Mr. Dimon and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk can. It pisses me off that I have to sit so far back on the table while all the big names get to wine and dine President Biden and the Democratic Party, while I get a few scraps from the table.
We’ll ignore the fact that the scraps I have gotten have finally made it so I can quit schooling and realistically pay my Student Loans now that it’s capped to 5% of your disposable income, and that I only have to pay that for 10 years rather than 25 or more because of PSLF. We’ll ignore the fact that I got quick and free access to a vaccine that ended COVID as a threat to me, and that I am able to work from home because my (Democratic) governor said ‘we’re out of the business of commercial real-estate. Everyone, your home is your office now.’ Between the vaccine and the not having to crowd on public transit with people who are frankly nasty, I haven’t gotten sick more often than once a year. But hey, the Dems increase harm according to you, so let’s go with that. Why trust my lying eyes eh?
OK. The Democrats are the equivalent of slow-driving a car towards a cliff. The Republicans? They have a plan for what they want to do. What does it include?
Fire Federal employees who refuse to implement Trump’s conservative manifesto for the USA.
End FBI attempts to police misinformation (oh, sorry, “Speech”).
Ban abortion pills federally.
Enforce Comstock Act to ban the mailing of abortion pills.
Exclude abortion coverage from Medicade
Ban unfriendly news media from the White House press pool.
Enforce unitary executive theory practices.
Schedule F - Replace tens of thousands of career bureaucrats with hand-picked conservative plants, which will require a similar overreach by the next Democrat, assuming we are allowed to pick one as POTUS, to undo.
Reverse liberal policies.
Removing references to abortions.
Defunding clinics that provide abortion services
Defund Dept of Justice and FBI
Target Political foes and unfriendly media orgs.
Restrict LGBTQ+ rights.
Rollback of climate policies.
Force Conservative policies on us
"Family Values"
“Christian Values”
“Traditional Gender Roles”
So, when I say the Democrats are slow-driving the car towards the cliff, if you let the Republicans behind the wheel, they’re gonna stomp on the gas as hard as they can, and they’re gonna rocket that sucker off the edge.
It may suck to you having to make this choice, but it’s what America offers. There are no other options in the USA thanks to our antiquated system of electing representatives. Pick the slow choice, or the fast choice will rocket you and everyone else off right…fucking…now.
PS: in case it’s not clear, I disagree with the heart of your argument, but for the sake of pointing out that even under your own assumptions, it’s better to vote D than R, I entertained it long enough to explain why you’re a fucking moron for pushing not to vote for Dems.
Third parties rarely run for Congress. This is actually how you can tell that the US has no serious third parties. None of them make Congress even a remote priority. If they somehow won the presidency, they wouldn’t be able to do anything because they have no Congressional support.
You’ve inadvertently highlighted why your only options are to vote Democrat or Republican. No other party is serious about trying to win. If they were, they’d be building up a local presence in all 50 states and winning local elections. Then they’d look at state legislatures and governors. Then Congress for the House and Senate, and then the presidency.
That’s a lot of work though, so they’d rather run presidential candidates and grift for donations. The argument typically goes that they’re trying to bring awareness to their party through the presidential election – but how exactly is that going for them? It’s readily apparent that strategy doesn’t work, and they’d be better off putting in the hard work to become actual political contenders.
If you don’t like how Congress represents you, support your desired representatives and senators in primaries, and then vote for the person you dislike least in the general election. Or, encourage a third party candidate to run who has statewide recognition and plenty of political experience.
Democrats and Republicans are the only options because all the other choices are batshit insane or just want to steal your donations.
Absolutely. Anyone who would waste a lot of money on an election they stand zero chance of winning and spends nothing on elections they actually could win. Is not a serious group. Until you know basically all third parties in America are simply presidential spoilers. Outside of the likes of the DSA Etc who have run candidates in a few state and local races as well.
Yeah they’re pretty much the only group that seems to understand this. They have other struggles though with having greater appeal – mainly from what I can tell, there’s a lot of discord between different chapters.
That said, there actually is one socialist who did win a state legislature election, in Virginia. And they were able to get an insulin cap bill passed because they worked cooperatively with democrats.
This is the model that people need to follow if they want to move beyond Democrats and Republicans. This single socialist legislator in one state has done more than the entire green party combined.
I’m Canadian. We have first past the post. Largely its a toss up between 1 of 2 parties federally but our far left party has won provincial elections and was within spitting distance of winning federally in recent memory.
It isnt fptp that’s prevenring you from electing a third party. Its your share delusion that it can’t happen.
Your election system allowed Doug Ford to win the Premiership of Ontario with 2.3 million votes, despite the NDP winning 1.9 million votes and the Liberal party winning 1.1 million votes. In fact, Ford won Ontario with a net margin of victory of -991,722 votes. That is to say, he lost the popular vote by almost a million votes, and still win the majority of seats. Here’s a few highlights
8 ridings went for the Progressive Conservatives in a margin narrower than 1000. These are:
Ottawa West - Nepean (175 MoV, 16.4k NDP, 14.8k Lib)
Brantford - Brant (635 MoV, 23.8k NDP, 5.6k Lib)
Brampton West (490 MoV, 14.5k NDP, 7.0k Lib)
Sault Ste. Marie (414 MoV, 13.1k NDP, 3.2k Lib)
Kitchener-Conestoga (686 MoV, 16.3 NDP, 6.0k Lib)
Kitchener South - Hespeler (770 MoV, 15.7k NDP, 6.3k Lib)
Eglinton-Lawrence (957 MoV, 9.0k NDP, 19.0k Lib)
Scarborough-Rouge Park (963 MoV, 15.3k NDP, 8.8k Lib)
Had less than 1000 people in each of these ridings from the smaller left wing party given their votes to the larger left-wing party, 8 seats would have been taken from the Progressive Conservatives (leaving them with 68 seats), and the NDP would have gained 7 seats (47) and the Libs would have gained 1 (going up to 8).
This is the same for another 23 ridings, but with a larger margin of victory. These ridings were nevertheless won by fewer votes than were sent to the smaller left-wing party. If we subtract these 23 seats, the PCs would have been down to 45 seats, enough for the NDP to have more seats before we allocate these 23 seats between the Libs, NDP, and Greens.
I like a lot of things about Canada, but I don’t like this fact about your country, and I don’t want it imported into the United States. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania went to Trump in 2016 not because more people voted for Trump’s policies than against them, but because enough people bought the bullshit that Clinton was corrupt and no better than Trump and voted third party or stayed home. Had the Stein voters used a bit of common sense and rethought their votes, we could have avoided 4 years of utter shitshow here. Canadian politics won’t help us here. All we need to do is look at your province of Ontario and see that clear as day.
An interesting thought exercise. What if Ontario used Proportional Representation. Ford would have gotten 76 seats, but he’d have seen an Ontario Parliament that was 187 or 188 seats. Of these:
The NDP would have gotten another 22 seats, in addition to their 40 won seats, for 62 total seats.
The Liberals would have gotten another 29 seats, in addition to their 7 won seats, for 36 total seats.
The Greens would have gotten 7 additional seats, plus their 1 won seat, for a total of 8 seats.
5 seats would have to be allocated between the NDP, Liberals, and Greens since the Progressive Conservatives shouldn’t be entitled to more than 40.5% of the seats as they got 40.5% of the vote.
We’d have to amend the US constitution to make this happen here, but I think you guys could just do it with a law there. But this is what ifs and coulda-bens. The as-is shows clearly why we don’t want to import your political system here. Democrats would never win an election again if we split our votes like Ontarians split theirs…
That’s not realistic in America with our duopoly and FPTP voting system. Voting for progressive candidates locally is our best bet and being represented, and supporting Ranked Voting systems in place of FPTP.
Maybe because Palestine is two separate territories with separate governments, and one is not at war? I don’t know what they say about using some variation of Gaza, but that seems more relevant to me
The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have been considered Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) since 1967, the occupation was a deliberate decision by Israel.
Israel is an Apartheid State by every international definition, with systematic discrimination and oppression of Palestinians. Divide and Conquer has been a tactic to separate Gaza from the West Bank, and also divide the West Bank into isolated enclaves.
On 1967:
Israel Claimed Its 1967 Land Conquests Weren’t Planned. Declassified Documents Reveal Otherwise: Haaretz and Forward
Palestine was recognized by the UN as a sovereign non-member state in 1988. It has no declared borders, so it could be considered inaccurate to refer to Palestine as a location rather than referring to the Palestinian people, leading to libel suits.
Basically, Palestine is wherever the Palestinians are. Legally, an attack on the Palestinian people is an attack on Palestine, but an attack on the formally occupied parts of the West Bank are not.
Yes, as well as the West Bank. My point is NYT was probably avoiding libel suits due to the ambiguity of the term “Palestine” because it’s more a definition of a people than a place.
As for the other restrictions, I think we all know what they were trying to avoid saying.
imagine being such a giant fucked up asshole that you think “oh, some people’s lives suck a little less so lets fuck over everyone that struggles to feed their kids.” is the way to go.
Imagine being such an asshole that you think this guy is doing god’s work and should be supported.
So pathetic. People these days need more Christ in their lives! or else they don’t see the compassion and love in reads notes taking food from children.
I protested that Halliburton cash grab war and it was rough. People young and old would treat us as if we were pissing on the flag. Still waitin’ on them WMDs Dubya!
It was unfortunately fruitless. That’s when I learned that Republicans don’t listen to protesters. They just vilify them in the news and call the police. Now we know they don’t even flinch at an insurrection. They may even call you a patriot.
It’s not an excuse. Bush knocked them back to the Stone Age and Halliburton got the contract to rebuild the nation while the US military supplemented their system of order. We created the problem.
We created the problem and continued to hang out and make it worse till we effectively were kicked out by the Iraqi govt that was supposedly “on our side.”
It’s an excuse. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and when your puppet says “nah y’all need to get the duck outta here” you done fucked up.
It would have been great if in 2007 when we called it, if instead of continuing to worsen the situation rebuilding actually occurred, maybe things would be different. But they aren’t.
I don’t need you gaslighting me about something I saw unfold.
Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq war. They made encouraging noises about stopping, but they did not get out in 2007 like you lied. They took until 2011, and if they had a Republican president to capitulate to at the time, they would have kept it going longer.
That’s when I learned that Republicans don’t listen to protesters.
I distinctly remember the way liberals enthusiastically villified antifa when they were the only ones willing to throw down with the neo-nazis and their police protectors in the streets a few years ago. Stop pretending that liberals’ overtly fascist cousins are the only anti-democratic faction in the US political establishment.
The Times memo outlines guidance on a range of phrases and terms. “The nature of the conflict has led to inflammatory language and incendiary accusations on all sides. We should be very cautious about using such language, even in quotations. Our goal is to provide clear, accurate information, and heated language can often obscure rather than clarify the fact,” the memo says.
“Words like ‘slaughter,’ ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ often convey more emotion than information. Think hard before using them in our own voice,” according to the memo. “Can we articulate why we are applying those words to one particular situation and not another? As always, we should focus on clarity and precision — describe what happened rather than using a label.”
Despite the memo’s framing as an effort to not employ incendiary language to describe killings “on all sides,” in the Times reporting on the Gaza war, such language has been used repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel’s large-scale killing of Palestinians.
In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.
Despite the memo’s framing as an effort to not employ incendiary language to describe killings “on all sides,” in the Times reporting on the Gaza war, such language has been used repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel’s large-scale killing of Palestinians.
Thank you for bolding it because it is the only relevant part of the article. If they wanna use scaled back language then fine, I have no real issue with that but if you’re breaking those rules for one side and upholding them for another then you’re just a hot pile of biased bullshit.
The banning of the terms Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing and Occupied Territory are also really important. The big difference is of course that the words slaughter, massacare etc can apply to both Palestinians and israelis. But their selective usasage does signify a massive double standard which proves the New York Times’ bias in favor of israel.
And it confirms earlier suspicions such as NLP reports from Holly Jackson written about a month into the Genocide that this selective usage of loaded terms against Palestinians was not accidental. It is a deliberate propaganda campaign for israel.
Another important fact here is that New York Times was not alone in this significant propaganda effort. Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Guardian, Reuters, and more. All of them had this very obviously skewed usage of language biased in favor of israel. Passive vs active tone, Palestinians “died” and israelis were “brutally slaughtered”.
theintercept.com
Top