Compromise always seem to mean “Give the far right half of what they want and give the left nothing they want.”
Well you see, after we give the far right half of what they want then we are out of funds. Sorry. Maybe next fiscal year. Probably not though because we would have to start a new compromise session of Congress.
would be great if we stopped votingin the far right.
Robber to victim: ok, let’s compromise. Give me half your money and I’ll only stab you a little.
Rapist to victim: Well let’s compromise, give me consent and it’s not rape…or I’ll just rape you a little bit.
“If you don’t give me consent, the other guys gonna do it anyway so you have to give me consent because I rape less”
the other guys gonna do it anyway so you have to give me consent because I rape less
in a capitalist system; you can can use the spirit of a free market to shop around and find someone who will rape you the least.
it’s a requirement not to be homeless in our late stage situation.
I didn’t know Macron was MAGA…
He’s a neoliberal ignoring the left in favor of the right wing AKA Blue MAGA just like conservative Democrats.
The context of the “Blue Maga” is that its a way to insult Democrats with Both-Sides-Bad-ism.
It’s almost like politicians court voters who can give them W’s.
Literally deliver votes where they’re needed, and you get your say in policy. Advocate, Advertise, Organize, become the biggest most vital voting block and then reap the rewards
This begs an important question…
(In your opinion) Why are people so racist that it determines their voting choices in great enough numbers that they’re a significant voting bloc?
I’m not the one you asked, but I have a wild ass guess. It makes them feel important and/or powerful to have someone to look down on.
And it’s nice to have some outside party to blame for… whatever.
It’s trivially easy to stoke that kind of fear and hate, manufacturing a loyal voter base that won’t look too closely at your policies, so the wealthy beneficiaries of GOP policy throw money at the narrative, the GOP runs with it, and suddenly a third of the population’s entire identity is built around the construction of a country-bankrupting wall to keep brown people ou- …pay no attention to the wall - now we’re banning musl- …migrant crime I call it Biden migrant crime… MS13…
Why are people so racist that it determines their voting choices in great enough numbers that they’re a significant voting bloc?
Because if a voter’s only real position is “Hurt minorities”, other positions are unlikely to stop them from voting for a candidate. On the other hand, people with actual ideologies can be tripped up even by one or two policies that are out-of-sync with their desired policies, reducing turnout.
…which is why there’s immense resources poured into manufacturing that racism and we have right wing unity - yes. I was walking them to that conclusion.
Racisms and culture issues are just used to distract from working and middle class economic exploitation
That’s about the sum of it - I was trying to lead that horse to water though.
“compromise with the rich” would have been very on-the-nose
Blue maga doesn’t need to compromise with the rich, they’re already bought and paid for.
The only people allowed to vote are racists and billionaires.
Bold of said person wearing a maga hat to assume they aren’t racist
You don’t know the OP very well. Notice the color of the hat. One of their main talking points, because they have to “muh both sides” everything, is that Democrats are “blue maga” and that is what they are referring to here.
This person ozmas.
Bold of you to assume I’m a person. Lol
Well we all can’t be perfect… Ly irrational like Ozma. At the very least you are a very good meat popsicle, or at least a far superior algorithm then they.
Blue Maga tried to give us Trump via Biden. They deserve to be named shamed and ignored. It needs to be repeated, often and necessarily, how close to disaster they brought this country.
Now that we were able to at least slap enough people awake in the Democratic party that we needed to abandon Biden, those apologists are now rallying around the defense of a genocide.
Blue MAGA are the most damaging and toxic political movements in modern political landscape.
Blue MAGA are the most damaging and toxic political movements in modern political landscape.
I know you’re going to pretend you’re not a trump supporter, but dear God you shouldn’t have made it so obvious that you are. Lol
No, no…God no.
I meant the left have to compromise with me.
The punchline that this OP has set up is that the speaker is “Blue Maga” which is to say a Democrat, therefor he IS the left.
itt: tell me you don’t get the joke without telling me you don’t get the joke.
He understands, OP is one of those both-sides dumbasses.
No, op is one of the few people acting in good faith in this forum. I would guess your the guy wearing the hat.
OP: “People who want socialized healthcare and antidiscrimination laws are equally bad as LITERAL NAZIS.”
TropicalDingdong: “Wow such good faith woah, Amazing!”
11 day old account.
Comes here making accusations about one of the most active, most frequent, most popular posters.
Wants to pretend they are the one operating in good faith.
If the boot fits.
Removed by mod
Tell me you are a redditor without telling me you are a redditor
This is where “it takes one to know one” very accurately applies.
Tell me you are new to Lemmy without telling me you are new to Lemmy.
If you are just here to marsh mellows, go back to the R place.
Same cartoon except it’s a Harris hat, and instead of racists, it’s genocidaires.
The hat is blue.
That hat says maga.
I’ll wait.
Ahhh, blue maga. Carry on.
I wonder what compromises we’d be willing to make with the right…
I’ll take aiding and abetting genocide for $200, Alex.
Oh, are you not voting or voting for trump? Because that’d make what you’re saying true.
The US is already aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide. If the Democrats switch course, like many Democratic voters want, it would significantly improve Harris’ support nationally, especially in swing states
Amnesty
In a new research briefing submitted to the U.S. government today as part of the National Security Memorandum on Safeguards and Accountability with Respect to Transferred Defense Articles and Defense Services (NSM-20) process, Amnesty International USA details civilian deaths and injuries with U.S.-made weapons, as well as other cases that highlight an overall pattern of unlawful attacks by Israeli forces. The briefing also details practices by Israeli forces inconsistent with best practices for mitigating civilian harm and provides clear examples of the misuse of defense articles, the commission of torture, and the use of unlawful lethal force. Lastly, the briefing also details the denial of humanitarian assistance to the civilian population of Gaza.
“It’s shocking that the Biden administration continues to hold that the government of Israel is not violating international humanitarian law with U.S.-provided weapons when our research shows otherwise and international law experts disagree,” said Amanda Klasing, National Director for Government Relations with Amnesty International USA. “The International Court of Justice found the risk of genocide in Gaza is plausible and ordered provisional measures. President Biden must end U.S. complicity with the government of Israel’s grave violations of international law and immediately suspend the transfer of weapons to the government of Israel.”
“The evidence is clear and overwhelming: the government of Israel is using U.S.-made weapons in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, and in a manner that is inconsistent with U.S. law and policy, said Klasing. “In order to follow U.S. laws and policies, the United States must immediately suspend any transfer of arms to the government of Israel.”
Polls:
I’d be really careful with these polls. The one from Zeteo has fewer than 400 respondents per state, has statistical error ranges of ± 5% and they don’t really share their methodology. Those results are pretty different than most I’ve seen, which makes me think this is sort of like Rasmussen, which is a pollster in the technical sense but tends to show Republicans doing 10 to 15% than reality, and that’s when they have thousands of respondents. The other one is an online poll which should immediately raise red flags, by a pollster who gets fairly low marks from 538, a polling aggregator which has proven itself over the years.
I’d also argue the stats on the second one seem a little cherry picked/misleading. Nate Silver put it quite well, “It’s true that the notion of a ceasefire is possible. But this is a bit like asking people whether they prefer war or peace; the support erodes once you start to dictate terms… By an overwhelming 64-13 majority, Americans support a ceasefire in Gaza. But by a 44-28 plurality, Americans oppose a ceasefire if Hamas ‘does not release its remaining hostages to Israel’, according to the same poll” It’s a little odd to have such a high percentage of folks saying Gaza is the top priority for them when it generally polls at one of the lowest issues (15th out of 16 polled in the spring)
(Public reporting indicates Hamas has refused release of all hostages as part of a ceasefire without some pretty unrealistic counter offers, e.g., full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.)
I think it’s valid to be skeptical of any one poll, but there are multiple polls with this trend, including the one you linked. I would not argue that the data from the AAI poll is cherry picked, but if we assume it is, we can still look at other polls. From the poll you linked:
Young Americans support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza by a five-to-one margin (51% support, 10% oppose). No major subgroup of young voters opposes such action.
This is the full YouGov Report that details it’s methodology
You can also see the same trend in this Data For Progress Poll
I don’t see your point about about the 44-28 plurality. The 3-stage UN Ceasefire proposal, that was put forth by the US and passed, has been accepted by the US and Hamas for months, and includes the full release of the hostages. The hostage exchange was one of the main reasons for Hamas’ decision to take hostages, as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are held hostage by Israel in torture prisons, including thousands of children.
Sources
Palestinians denied civil rights (HRW) including Military Court (B’TSelem)
Palestinian Prisoners in Israel (wiki)
Children are jailed and abused in Israeli prisons (Save The Children)
Torture and Abuse in Interrogations (B’TSelem)
Thousands of Palestinians are held without charge under Israeli detention policy (NPR)
In terms of the reasons why they chose to attack, these articles detail the three main reasons. The realities of the Occupation and Apartheid are critical to understand how this kind of violent retaliation is developed.
Full Military withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza is a bare minimum. How is it reasonable for the force currently engaged in genocide to continue it’s control? That’s not a ceasefire, that’s continued occupation.
I don’t see your point about about the 44-28 plurality.
That’s kind of the big point there. Basically, people like the idea of a cease fire. It’s like asking “should people be happy?” Who would say no? BUT, the devil is in the details. Hamas said yes but Israel argued “no more Hamas” (which, y’know, after Hamas organized and executed the murder and sexual assault of more than a thousand people is not entirely wild) so what does the US do? Force Israel to capitulate, withdraw and allow Hamas to function? The polling for that would look a lot different.
(And full military withdrawal from Gaza is a no go for Israel as it would almost certainly allow Hamas to rearm, resupply and rebuild.)
That being said, I think Netanyahu is the largest obstacle to peace here but I also know enough to know that the Israelis who have dealt with military attacks and acts of terrorism like suicide bombings since inception have some understandable security concerns.
Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
During the current war, Hamas officials have said that the group does not want to return to ruling Gaza and that it advocates for forming a government of technocrats to be agreed upon by the various Palestinian factions. That government would then prepare for elections in Gaza and the West Bank, with the intention of forming a unified government.
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
Sources
Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Hamas officials should be held accountable for all war crimes committed, same as all Israeli officials. That said, there are many parallels between the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Gaza.
In the Shadow of the Holocaust by Masha Gessen, the situation in Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghettos. The comparison was also made by a Palestinian poet who was later killed by an Israeli airstrike. Adi Callai, an Israeli, has also written on the parallels in his article The Gaza Ghetto Uprising and expanded upon in his corresponding video
I’d compromise to allow people who only have right wing beliefs which haven’t escalated into criminal activity yet to join exit programmes voluntarily
Sounds good until you realize that right wing people spanning from center right to outright fascism control what’s legal or not and social murder is not just legal but the norm…
Yes of course, the law (as it’s usually used) is not important compared to ethical action
