• Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!

Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
S.A.C. Martin said:
Sorry I should have made my view clear:

The 180 degree is the support for Israel, which is receding at significant rates. This poll is one of several which shows that the vast majority of brits want a ceasefire, want both sides to negotiate, want an end to the fighting.

I would disagree with you that the majority of the public have been pro Palestine. I think it has accelerated publicly, which is not the same thing.

But equally, maybe mainsteam british media has skewed mine and others views, I don’t know.

Either way, there has been a notable and clear change (but not as sweeping as I was, unintentionally, saying earlier).

My apologies, I hope that makes my view clearer.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with you that the majority of the public have been pro Palestine. I think it has accelerated publicly, which is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that my framing of the British public was incomplete. One could certainly argue a neutral/Palestine/Israel percentage split of 70/20/10 represents a neutral public, rather than a pro-Palestine public. There are various reasons I made the framing choice I did. To that end, I originally focused on how, even from the beginning, the pro-Palestine bloc was decisively larger than the pro-Israel bloc. For other reasons, I'll note the contrast between the British public and the American public on viewing the genocide–the British public being relatively pro-Palestine in this comparison–and that policy issues often depend on small passionate or invested minorities to push their stances through a largely-neutral public. Nevertheless, I again agree the framing is incomplete, and that the bloc of Palestine supporters has risen by a meaningful amount.

This poll is one of several which shows that the vast majority of brits want a ceasefire, want both sides to negotiate, want an end to the fighting.
Click to expand...
If it was unclear, I do not (and did not) disagree with this.

The 180 degree is the support for Israel, which is receding at significant rates.
Click to expand...
As I implied in my post, there are a couple different ways we can conceptualize "support for Israel": the percent of people who say "I support Israel", the gap between Palestine and Israel support (raw subtraction), and the gap between Palestine and Israel support (ratio). All of these measures disagree with your claim that Israel support is receding at significant rates. Two are pointing the opposite direction, and one is static. You may believe I misinterpreted the data or may believe the data are incomplete for some reason, but neither is clear to me.

"I support Israel"Pro-Palestine Margin (Subtraction)Pro-Palestine Margin (Ratio)
Israel Support (1Y)10% -> 17% (+7)14% -> 14% (=0)2.4x -> 1.8x (-0.6x)
 
RaikouLover said:
They are? Which ones? Name them.
Click to expand...
people literally tried to name them

1724351724123.png


https://x.com/i/web/status/1826479453414850813
 
Adeleine said:
I acknowledge that my framing of the British public was incomplete. One could certainly argue a neutral/Palestine/Israel percentage split of 70/20/10 represents a neutral public, rather than a pro-Palestine public. There are various reasons I made the framing choice I did. To that end, I originally focused on how, even from the beginning, the pro-Palestine bloc was decisively larger than the pro-Israel bloc. For other reasons, I'll note the contrast between the British public and the American public on viewing the genocide–the British public being relatively pro-Palestine in this comparison–and that policy issues often depend on small passionate or invested minorities to push their stances through a largely-neutral public. Nevertheless, I again agree the framing is incomplete, and that the bloc of Palestine supporters has risen by a meaningful amount.


If it was unclear, I do not (and did not) disagree with this.


As I implied in my post, there are a couple different ways we can conceptualize "support for Israel": the percent of people who say "I support Israel", the gap between Palestine and Israel support (raw subtraction), and the gap between Palestine and Israel support (ratio). All of these measures disagree with your claim that Israel support is receding at significant rates. Two are pointing the opposite direction, and one is static. You may believe I misinterpreted the data or may believe the data are incomplete for some reason, but neither is clear to me.

"I support Israel"Pro-Palestine Margin (Subtraction)Pro-Palestine Margin (Ratio)
Israel Support (1Y)10% -> 17% (+7)14% -> 14% (=0)2.4x -> 1.8x (-0.6x)
Click to expand...

No, for clarity I don’t believe you're misreading the data. I am saying my perception may be skewed, and that the statistics do not show what I am observing overall in British culture. In short we agree.
 
SittinGamer said:
It would be more lit if they allowed a Palestinian American to even simply speak at the event

(On the whole I agree with you but fuck man it sounds like they're TRYING to piss off the younger and Arab American voters that had been signaling less support for the party in power supplying a genocide)
Click to expand...

Yeah, Kamala team refusing the Uncommitted Movement request to put on a speaker is suuuuuuuuuper cringe. If they don’t fix that, don’t be surprised if we lose Michigan or another swing state, and it’s Kamala’s fault completely there.

Gonna be real y’all though— I think the reason Kamala offered them talks instead of a speaker is because she thinks she can win regardless and I’m inclined to believe that calculus is right. They have bargaining power and moral power but not enough.

Another thing to be real about is that the leftward shifts the party HAS taken had ZERO to do with the Green Party/Cornel West/Force the Vote anti-Democratic Party leftist forces, and EVERYTHING to do with the Bernie Movement, the Squad & Progressive Caucus/Voters, and the individual leanings of people like Biden. It’s almost alllllll insider stuff, leftist forces choosing to play ball inside the party’s framework, its rules, its org, its voters.

Uncommitted is powerful because it too is playing in that framework, but it’s the same as Progressives only getting a fraction of what they want.

It sucks that we can’t stick our way to Palestinian freedom, and the game theory is definitely unintuitive as to WHY!?, but I’m inclined to agree with RL that more Muslims voting for Kamala will lead to more urgency from her to help Palestine.
 
You say that the shifts within the Democratic party are the responsibility of Biden, Bernie, and the Squad. I agree: the Democratic party fully supports the mass slaughter of Palestinians, and Bernie, the Squad, and the Progressive Caucus are indeed complicit in that for continuing to support the very party responsible for sending bombs on a daily basis to Zionist killers so that they can shred babies day after day.
 
RaikouLover said:
No, we in the United States do not live in hell.
Click to expand...
I think a place where the right to have medical attention is only accessible for those with money qualifies as hell.
RaikouLover said:
Then you really should not go down the path of comparing or trying to educate the community that fought for 300 years to win civil rights for everyone in this country.
Click to expand...
...

"This man cant be homophobic, he's associated with people who aren't homophobic."
atomicllamas said:
Objectively the next President is going to be Trump (the person you stated is committing treason by asking Netanyahu to not sign a cease fire) or Harris. You not voting does not change that.
Click to expand...
that doesn't mean not voting changes nothing. the candidates want your vote, and they will do things to get it.
Adeleine said:
Didn't want this to be lost in the rush of activity.

Of course, when the original post is modified or deleted, this one should be too.
Click to expand...
I think faint is autistic, which gives them the pass since this is apparently how this works.
 
lilyhollow said:
You say that the shifts within the Democratic party are the responsibility of Biden, Bernie, and the Squad. I agree: the Democratic party fully supports the mass slaughter of Palestinians, and Bernie, the Squad, and the Progressive Caucus are indeed complicit in that for continuing to support the very party responsible for sending bombs on a daily basis to Zionist killers so that they can shred babies day after day.
Click to expand...

I’m saying that Jill Stein 2016 and Bernie can both demand Medicare for All, only one gets the party onboard with Medicare Drug Negotiation power.

Cornel West and Rashida Tlaib can both demand a path to Peace, Tlaib has a lot more power to make that happen.

The Uncommitted leaders are waaaaaaaaay more useful to the Palestinians than the “Abandon Biden” leaders.

And paradoxically the more Muslim/Arab American voters Kamala gets, the more help the Palestinians will get.
 
Last edited:
Chou Toshio said:
If they don’t fix that, don’t be surprised if we lose Michigan or another swing state, and it’s Kamala’s fault completely there.
Click to expand...
I would be very surprised; Whitmer lost the Arab vote in 2022 and won the governorship by 11 points. Elissa Slotkin (pro-Israel) beat Hill Harper (pro-ceasefire) in Dearborn MI, in the recent MI senate primary on August 6th, by 25 points. Where are these swings going to come from?
 
Last edited:
Celticpride said:
I would be very surprised; Whitmer lost the Arab vote in 2022 and won the governorship by 11 points. Elissa Slotkin (pro-Israel) beat Hill Harper (pro-ceasefire) in Deadborn MI, in the recent MI senate primary on August 6th, by 25 points. Where are these swings going to come from?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think Kamala needs to avoid total comms disaster but she’s done the table napkin math and is right that she doesn’t need their vote to win, not even in Michigan being real— at this point her cards are waaaaaay too strong for her to be strong armed at all by Uncommitted.

They can definitely have influence, a place at the table… but only with carrot and stick and… unfortunately for Palestinian lives… patience.
 
Last edited:
In other words, the Democratic party holds immense power to help billions of people, but it actively chooses not to do so 99.99999% of time. For example, they have the extremely powerful ability to stop sending infinite weapons to slaughter babies in the streets of Gaza, yet they actively choose to continue sending the weapons, every single day.

To me, this is a clear reason to defeat and dismantle the democratic party forever. For those who are not ready for that yet, it is at least clear that the democratic party is a bad actor that needs to be pressured and fought against. Meekly begging for scraps and ultimately being assimilated like Bernie and AOC have is not an option when the party is a Nazi party that helps massacre Palestinians for nearly a year straight while lying about it.

For Democratic party loyalists though, this is all no problem. They can just scrounge around for the 0.000001% of the time that the Democrats cave to popular pressure and then take full credit for all that is good in the world. No doubt if the DNC did end up having a Palestinian speaker, Democrats would claim this as an enormous gigantic epic bacon win for the Democrats, and as proof that the Democrats are the ultimate progressive vehicle for change, and that everyone else is irrelevant. Totally not a cult.
 
Celticpride said:
I would be very surprised; Whitmer lost the Arab vote in 2022 and won the governorship by 11 points. Elissa Slotkin (pro-Israel) beat Hill Harper (pro-ceasefire) in Deadborn MI, in the recent MI senate primary on August 6th, by 25 points. Where are these swings going to come from?
Click to expand...

To be fair, governor races have no correlation whatsoever to Pres and Senate races. Whitmer and Shapiro are not indicative of Dem odds in Michigan and Pennsylvania, nor is Kemp a barometer for convicted felon Trump’s odds in Georgia.

Michigan is about two points bluer than Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There’s a very real chance that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona have identical or super close partisan leans this cycle, meaning Michigan is unlikely to be the tipping point state and certainly ends up going blue in a Harris victory. Although it is also possible that Georgia and Arizona continue their leftward trend and pass the “blue wall” states, which would make Michigan the decider.
 
Ok while I think there is discussion to be had re: what is a slur, it is outside the scope of this thread and things were getting a bit too heated. Probably didn't need to nuke the discussion wholesale tbh but, again, off topic. If you have interest in actually discussing it in a proper topic, please PM myself and/or awyp. Otherwise I'm going to take it as a tangent that went off the rails
 
Oglemi said:
Ok while I think there is discussion to be had re: what is a slur, it is outside the scope of this thread and things were getting a bit too heated. Probably didn't need to nuke the discussion wholesale tbh but, again, off topic. If you have interest in actually discussing it in a proper topic, please PM myself and/or awyp. Otherwise I'm going to take it as a tangent that went off the rails
Click to expand...
It'd be helpful to have a clearer picture of what kinds of "politics" and "political" this thread is here for. I read the OP and nothing made that clear. If anything, the references to "affects our everyday daily lives" made me think this thread was welcome for smaller-scale political topics like slur use.
 
Adeleine said:
It'd be helpful to have a clearer picture of what kinds of "politics" and "political" this thread is here for. I read the OP and nothing made that clear. If anything, the references to "affects our everyday daily lives" made me think this thread was welcome for smaller-scale political topics like slur use.
Click to expand...
Seconding this. The conversation might have been somewhat removed from the daily goings-on of electoral politics, but slurs and the histories they represent are unequivocally political, and I think that there's value for those who participate in the discussion.
 
Cancel cult said:
God I want that world. It really sucks to be a republican when every single popular candidate is the worst person you've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Republicans did this to themselves. The Party of Lincoln allowed itself to become a fascist party. We still have a handful of liberal Republicans here in the northeast. Unfortunately, they end up more popular with Democrats and Independents than their own party.
 
adjectivenoun said:
Seconding this. The conversation might have been somewhat removed from the daily goings-on of electoral politics, but slurs and the histories they represent are unequivocally political, and I think that there's value for those who participate in the discussion.
Click to expand...
Adeleine said:
It'd be helpful to have a clearer picture of what kinds of "politics" and "political" this thread is here for. I read the OP and nothing made that clear. If anything, the references to "affects our everyday daily lives" made me think this thread was welcome for smaller-scale political topics like slur use.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree; the topic of politics is broad and there's room to talk about it, the issue here being there was also 2 pretty distinct conversations happening at once, it was heated and tangential, and I would rather detach the discussion on slurs into a separate thread to better focus the topic so it's not directed at users.
 
Dead by Daylight said:
The only world where this idea can remotely be entertained is one where the two-party system itself is demolished, which isn't happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...
These monsters are killing, and killing, and killing, and killing. Defeating them and the republicans forever must happen. If it takes a lot of time and effort then so be it, but there can be no excuses for allowing this evil to persist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top