Most American comment ever? Lol

I assume you are not popular at parties. 😁

Edit: oh god, you’re the dude with 50,000 comments in like a year. Nevermind.

Well, it’s asymmetrical warfare. It works like that. You want everyone to line up in straight lines across a football field and take turns firing?

I purpose we have all the world’s nations choose one competitive video game, and then everyone develops their gaming team, then all potential military disputes are settled by a best of five match of the chosen game.

No wallhax.

“Diamonds”

There’s literally a Lemmy user trying to mark all Trump supporters on a map on a website. Nazi I assume?

When you reach, stretch, and attempt to classify everyone who does awful things or that you disagree with politically a “nazi,” you make the word mean less, and you make people care about the term less.

People like me, right now. Carry on, this thread is boring.

Edit: this is handy, it’s like a self-selecting block list. Thanks yall!

Narrator: They weren’t.

They’re not “acting” like it’s nothing new. It is nothing new, and we’ve had large, nation-wide protests because of it.

Perhaps you’ve noticed how the majority of the responses here are some sarcastic version of “yeah, no shit”?

No, it’s not like saying that at all. Comparable racially motivated arrest rates (and criticism) happens in towns like Ferguson, MO; Brookside, AL; Pine Lawn, MO; St. Ann, MO; Country Club Hills, MO; Walnut Grove, MS; Benton, AR; and Richland, MS to name only a few.

Each of them is, as the commenter pointed out, in the south and many are in Missouri and Mississippi. These are racist towns that use arrests and police violence against, usually, black people as a violent form of oppression. Perhaps Ferguson, MO rings a bell?

The other commenter wasn’t saying “there’s nothing to see here,” they are saying there’s a lot more to see here, and it happens to be regionally specific for these more egregious examples, but it happens across the country. Perhaps “Black Lives Matter” rings a bell? This is a large part of what BLM is about.

What you don’t realize is that this is how poor people in America get healthcare. 🤣😅😐😭

Defensive much?

It doesn’t need a 4K screenshot. It needs enough data/metrics from any given single frame to run it through analytics and an algorithm to tailor ads. Backend surveillance like this isn’t interested in fidelity to the human viewing experience. It needs identifying data. That can be had through a combination of low quality data scrapes done numerous times.

“Screenshot” is more like a metaphor here. Sort of like how your Apple or Google photos are “private,” but the data and analytics taken from them you’ve given away. It’s like if you told me I could look at all the photos on your phone and take as many notes and subject them to as much analysis as I wanted, but I promised not to actually physically keep your phone/photos. Probably makes you feel like your photos are securely still in your possession, but I got what I wanted. Your data is technically private, but my data about your data is mine.

Sweep them into the ocean and throw their lawyers in with them for good measure.

And nothing of value will be lost.

Let’s skip to the part where they demand federal monies to rebuild in the same disaster-prone areas.

I’m not basing it on vibes, I’m basing it on a plurality of polls that have been done around this issue over the last six months, which have consistently shown there is only downside risk for Harris for something like supporting an arms embargo. These recent polls are considered low-quality polls by low-rated pollsters.

That said, I do hope you and these recent polls are right, but I’m dubious about it until we get more data. My inclination is to trust the preponderance of polls heretofore until there is more confirming data. It’s ugly, but because I see the election of Trump as existential for Palestine, stability in the middle east, and because there are nuclear weapons at play, I’m very keen to think first about Harris’s ability to win at this point in the election cycle than immediate action against Israel.

I don’t like how it is at all, but I recognize that what is already an atrocity will get significantly worse if Trump wins. When the downside risk is four years of unmitigated disaster home and abroad, and with the election only weeks away, I think it’s reasonable to be cautious. I’ll also add, however, that public support of Israel has been consistently eroding for months now, so it’s quite possible sentiment has changed enough that it would have a negligible or positive impact on Harris’s campaign, but the consequences if the polling is wrong or fails to account for knock-on downsides are extreme.

I’m working from the premise that I think everyone can agree with: a Trump presidency will be disastrous for Palestine and Lebanon. With that said, while polls from the IMEU suggest that Harris could gain support from progressives and Independents by endorsing an arms embargo on Israel, these findings largely reflect voters who are already inclined to support her. The polling indicates that those who already lean toward Harris would be even more motivated by such a stance, but it overlooks the potential backlash from other critical voter groups.

An arms embargo risks alienating moderate Democrats, segments of Jewish voters, and security-conscious Independents who see U.S.-Israel relations as crucial to national security. These groups could view Harris’s support for an embargo as undermining a long-standing alliance and weakening U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Republicans would likely capitalize on this policy shift, using it to energize their base and paint Harris as weak on national security.

In a national election, the net effect would likely be a loss of support in a race where she already has a roughly 50% chance of losing. The enthusiasm gained from progressives would likely be significantly outweighed by defections from moderates, the mobilization of well-funded, Israel-aligned PACs, and the energizing of conservative opposition.

The IMEU polling appears to oversample individuals who are already inclined to support an arms embargo on Israel, such as progressives and some Independents. This skews the results by amplifying the potential enthusiasm from voters who are already in Harris’s camp, while under-representing moderates, Jewish voters, and security-focused individuals who might defect if she adopts this position.

Unfortunately, the pool of voters who would vote for her only if she supports an arms embargo is much smaller than the larger, more diverse groups that could shift away from her if she takes this stance. But, it would be a calculated risk that maybe she should take. No one knows exactly how this would shake out in the election. Based on a broad examination of multiple polls, I’m inclined to believe this will lose her the election.

I think that the fact one element of Russian disinformation campaigns has been to amplify the question of Gaza in political discourse points to the fact that it’s a “loser” issue for Harris, where she loses if she doesn’t do anything and she loses if she does. But opinions and sentiment change, and maybe there has been enough of a shift in public sentiment that it won’t mortally wound her campaign anymore, but it’s a gamble anyway you slice it. If she takes the risk and loses the election, all of this is moot. Trump will arm and give full-throated support to Israel without regard for what they do.

K.

Life isn’t simple or easy.

I’m convinced Israel is pushing as hard as they can because they know they’ll either 1) continue getting the weapons and, therefore, tacit endorsement of their actions from/by the US, or 2) Biden actually tries to embargo arms to Israel, thereby losing the election for Harris, and then they’ll get the weapons and explicit endorsement from Trump in a few months.

Politically, the only way they lose is if they stop being aggressive and genocidal, because that would increase the chance of a Harris victory, which means they then might not get to keep picking fights and a Harris administration with four years in front of them might very well enact an arms embargo, hurting Israel’s military in the much longer term.

Sadly, the only long-term chance of the US doing something about Israel will need to be a) after the election, and b) only if Harris wins. Otherwise Trump will basically allow them to double down on everything they’re doing with even less outcry. Standing on principle here actually increases the harm to Lebanon and Palestine in the long term.

The US will be busy dealing with mass deportations, the carving out and amputation of many federal departments, and the jailing of opposition politicians. And that’s before it possibly gets worse. So even the limited outcry and opposition in the US will decrease with a Trump victory.

Before the election, he won’t support changing the law that allocates votes as it’s currently done.

They aren’t saying allocate the votes to a candidate, they’re talking about how the votes are currently allocated within the electoral college in the state.

It’s a 2-trillion-dollar company, I think news of their coming demise has been exaggerated.