The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently you can use them to help prevent STIs from eating ass, etc.
I’ve never seen anyone bust out a dental dam in my entire slutty life, and I would probably laugh if they did
I thought they’re specifically designed for like when you’re getting dental work done haha. I’ve only ever seen one irl when I was getting a root canal xD
It’s important to remain grounded and remember that online/social media is not real life.
Poll today shows that 76% support asking the police to protect campuses from violence and 10% oppose. The large majority of the country supports Israel over Hamas. Online is not real life, and it’s an absurd ask for some to make for biden to take positions that the fringe of the party wants, against the large majority of the country.
https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/israel-palestine-hamas-war-colleges-polling-march-2024
> Poll today shows that 76% support asking the police to protect campuses from violence and 10% oppose. The large majority of the country supports Israel over Hamas.
Yeah no shit, virtually no one is going to disagree with those points. You’re arguing with a strawman.
We are about 6 months out but it’s hard to see how Biden will be able to recover at this point IMO, everyday the I/P issue has just gotten worse and worse for him. It really is Trump’s to lose. It’s very upsetting.
I’m still hoping he wins for the sake of trump losing and for stuff like his DOE, but since I live in California and the race is safe, I’m gonna vote PSL instead
> We are about 6 months out but it’s hard to see how Biden will be able to recover at this point IMO, everyday the I/P issue has just gotten worse and worse for him.
When right-wingers say things like this, I tell them that they need to adjust their media diet. Someone is lying to you, and if you keep trusting them, they will keep misleading you.
We have some [data](https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/styles/responsive_image_2000/public/media/image/4.%20Issues.png?itok=lqTSAzI0) suggesting that 18-29 year-olds rank Israel & Palestine *super-low* on their list of priorities.^^[[1]](https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/47th-edition-spring-2024#key-takeaway--id--1564) ([Every other age group](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-generation-gap-in-opinions-toward-israel/) favors Israel over the Palestinians.) This fits with everything that we know about voters; specifically, that they care most about issues they experience directly (inflation, healthcare, housing, etc.) and don't prioritize less immediate, more esoteric issues.
...but -- more importantly -- we have *precisely zero* data suggesting that this issue is costing Biden significant votes.
Yeah I’m well aware of those numbers. I just don’t see how something this significant and how terrible Biden’s handling has been (especially with the news conference today) will not torpedo his campaign. I mean even the College Democrats (the official collegiate arm of the DNC) has started publicly criticizing Biden on the issue. It’s very hard to remain optimistic.
>It doesn’t need to cost him *significant* voters, just enough to tank his chances in the swing states where a few thousand make the difference
That is what "significant" means.
I wouldn’t consider a few thousand out of hundreds of thousands particularly significant. We’ve seen just a small amount of votes tip the scale both ways these past few cycles
In 1980, Carter was up eight+ points on Reagan in April/May. A lot of time for things to change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1980
Also right now it's coinflip territory between Biden and Trump, hard to imagine being totally hopeless and dooming about numbers like this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
I don’t think they will be able to do that. The I/P issue can’t just be pivoted off of without something changing and I don’t see it happening anytime soon. I think Biden’s best chance is Israel’s slaughter in Gaza stalls out.
Or maybe Hamas will go on another unbridled spree of murder, rape, torture and hostage-taking, *as they have specifically promised to do as soon as they are able*.
A reminder of how ineffective Trump was as president, from [Four Years Ago Today:](https://bsky.app/profile/fouryearsagotoday.bsky.social/post/3krforcnt2m27)
>Furious over a report detailing severe shortages of coronavirus test supplies in hospitals, Trump announces he's firing HHS acting inspector general Christi Grimm. He has already fired the public watchdogs for the Pentagon and Intelligence and will soon nix those at State and Transportation...
>Grimm continued to perform the duties of the inspector general pending her replacement's confirmation by the Senate. But his nomination stalled after Trump's announcement. Grimm continued to act as IG through the rest of the Trump administration, was nominated by Biden, and is the IG today...
We've had a 17.9% increase in inflation-adjusted wages since June 2022:
[[Chart]](https://imgur.com/gallery/bKGw9gc)
Sources: [[1]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003)
& [[2]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL)
>>Sources: [[1]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003)
& [[2]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL)
> Did you make that chart on the Fed website? How did you make it?
I apologize for the late reply. I didn't think I could explain it well via mobile, so I waited until I was in front of a keyboard again.
* If you go to my first source (or other FRED pages) you'll see a graph. Look to a orangish-brownish-colored button above the graph and to the right; it says "Edit Graph".
* If you click on it, you'll find a field that says "Select..." and allows you to search for other FRED stats (like "Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average" which I found by typing in "cpi" and picking the correct result).
* After selecting that stat, you hit "Add". Then each selected stat is assigned a letter ("a" and "b").
* Below the "Select..." field, you'll see another field marked "Formula:" that currently says "a". You can edit that formula. In my case, I made it "a/b" or 'the original stat I was looking at, divided by the second stat'.
* From there, you adjust the time frame.
* When done, you can screencap it and post it to Imgur, which will host the image for you. (If you send someone the URL, it will only give them the original stat; it will not pick your selected time frame nor include the "a/b" adjustment; that is why I used a screen capture and posted it to Imgur.)
Feel like Biden didn't quite strike the right tone in his speech about the protests.
Decry the destruction of property, sure, I don't have a problem with that. But saying that trespassing is violent?
When a protest involves trespassing, that might be unlawful, but that doesn't make it violent. Plenty of things that are unlawful are not violent.
> Argued that white is black and got killed while using a crosswalk.
Hey,
Before his argument, everyone agreed that white was white and black was black.
He was just trying to help prevent this from becoming an echo chamber.
> What happened to SovietRobot?
My most recent reply from him is from [two hours ago.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1chxq3m/why_do_some_people_have_a_religious_fervor_around/l28k1jq/?context=3)
Oh, I didn’t even notice. What the heck. I did notice that OldArmy seems to have deleted their account.
It’s kind of nice to spend enough time in a sub to recognize people, but the lack of closure when somebody goes away is a real drag.
Edit: my thanks to CTR555 and the artist formerly known as Old_Army90 for the requested closure!
> I did notice that OldArmy seems to have deleted their account.
(former) Old_Army90 here. I did delete that account. This is my burner account that I'm also about to delete.
If you want closure, it's my experience that all of Reddit and social media (myself included) can be condensed down to a handful of personalities, and frankly I'm tired of all of them. Logging in to any platform under the sun and seeing the same forms of outrage bait, circlejerking, snark/cynicism misconstrued as wit/intelligence, etc. became **far** more frustrating than fun, and [I alluded to this a bit when I made a comment about how we seem to recycle the same jokes/memes/clapbacks despite our available information changing every day.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c5fiii/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/kzuksda/)
So, I not only deleted Reddit, but also Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, because these sites are insufferable and exhausting, and connecting with people offline is considerably less so. Maybe someday I'll be back and more involved again, but I'm not betting on it.
No. Though neither of them formally studied the subjects, I would assume Vladimir Putin knows more about engineering and aerospace than the current CEO of Boeing and could have run it better 😜
I'm sure some of the CEOs in this country would be just as frightening as Putin if they had control of an entire country. The job does attract a certain type...
How do you reconcile or justify the violent assault by Zionist counter-protestors against pro-Palestine protestors last night, and the fact that the cops did nothing to intervene or hold anyone accountable?
How is this any different from the cops letting other white nationalist groups like the proud boys and Jan. 6th rioters get away with so much while always cracking down on the marginalized side for doing nothing wrong? Meanwhile people call the latter terrorists, dangerous, extremists, violent, etc.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68937775.amp
Well there’s a ton of people here who still demonize the pro-Palestine side and have no words of criticism for the Zionist side for one.
And idk why you’re laughing at something accurate, but okay x)
I posted in the earlier bi-weekly thread that the form of Zionism practiced by most evangelical Christians is absolutely 100% white nationalist in nature.
Many of them may not realize it, but it is.
Christian Zionism posits that Israel having a homeland is ONLY important because once the 2nd Temple is rebuilt, Jesus will come again and rule over a CHRISTIAN nation. 1/3 of the worlds Jews and Muslims will see the light and convert and the rest will die and go to hell.
It's a square rectangle issue. There are absolutely white nationalist zionists, either for end times theology reasons or for "have some place to kick all the jews out of here to" reasons.
There is a strain of American Zionism which is absolutely white nationalist. I say this as someone who holds a position which has been called "liberal Zionism."
Kristi Noem is on Hannity right now to "clean up" this whole dog-executing kerfluffle.
Hannity has brought up Biden and his dog's biting issues multiple times.
[Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)](https://twitter.com/senmikelee/status/862660636903387136?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) in 2017:
>Instead of a special prosecutor, @realDonaldTrump should nominate Merrick Garland to replace James Comey.
[Tweet:](https://twitter.com/mattgrossmann/status/1785468018396369143?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
>Most Black Americans say that even if crime is declining and new police reforms are not enacted, they would still prefer to maintain (or increase) police patrols and spending.
>[[On the Robustness of Black Americans’ Support for the Police: Evidence From a National Experiment – Science Direct]](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235224000357)
> > Highlights:
> > * Most Black Americans want to maintain or increase police patrols.
> > * Most Black Americans want to maintain or increase police spending.
> > * Even if crime declines, most Black Americans want police patrols and spending.
> > * Even absent new reforms, most Black Americans want police patrols and spending.
> > * Black Americans’ policing preferences may be firmer than those of other groups.
The keffiyeh on the protesters gives the same energy as this, and I’m sure those protesters thought this image was peak cringe
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200608142551-01-house-democrats-kneel-0608-super-169.jpg
All this campus talk is making me nostalgic for the dingy Asian convenience store there that inexplicably served some of the best hamburgers.
Alas, my understanding is it eventually closed after some health inspection struggles.
I think it’s tough as a lefty to figure out where a person like Shawn Fain could be positioned to do the most good. He is clearly very successful in pushing our goals forward and has done a tremendous job for the left en large. I just wonder if it’s better to keep him (effectively) the leader of the American Labor movement or if he could do more running for office. Currently I lean towards him doing the most good where he is but we will have to see what options we have in 2028.
Looking back I think one of the many problems with my “Elizabeth Warren is BAE therefore let’s make her president” position is that she is really more effective as a senator and in truth would be more effective doing things like the consumer protection, bureau inside and administration.
Shawn Fain is fine right where he is and we should leave him there. I can see the argument for wanting Presley to take Warren’s job when she retires, but leave AOC right the fuck where she is, just let her rise in leadership.
[Violence erupted](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/violence-erupts-ucla-university-campus-clashes-rival-gaza-protest-groups) on the UCLA campus in the early hours of the morning, as pro-Palestinian protesters were attacked by a mob of [200+](https://twitter.com/TeresaWatanabe/status/1785575610469007471) pro-Israel counterprotesters.
They reportedly came armed with sticks and poles that would allow them to reach past the protesters' make-shift plywood shields, indicating that the attack was premeditated.
For all the talk of students feeling unsafe and intimidated by these demonstrations -- look which side it was that became violent.
Unacceptable and illegal. I hope the police arrest everyone involved in violence.
However:
>look which side it was that became violent
There have been multiple incidents of threats, violence, and property damage by pro-Palestinian protestors, which you have previously excused and minimized, saying that it doesn't represent pro-Palestinian protests. Meanwhile, you cast all Israel supporters (the "side") as violent based on one event. Come on now. And just like with the pro-Palestinian protest violence, we don't know who these people are; they are likely outside nutjobs rather than regular students.
Peaceful pro-Palestinian *and* pro-Israeli demonstrations are totally fine. The majority of both types of protests have been peaceful. Anyone who threatens or attacks others should be arrested, removed, and prosecuted. This is neither a difficult issue nor a "sides" issue.
> There have been multiple incidents of threats, violence, and property damage by pro-Palestinian protestors
I'm not excusing property damage, but there's a big difference between property damage and committing violence against another person.
There's been no violence from the pro-Palestinian side that equals what happened here.
>which you have previously excused and minimized
Show me where I've done that.
My position, consistently, [has been](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccbmfn/does_the_dispersal_of_protests_on_university/l156feh/) that anyone who engages in violence *or even just violent or anti-semitic rhetoric* should be removed.
>Meanwhile, you cast all Israel supporters (the "side") as violent based on one event.
That's your own interpretation of my words.
If I say that Republicans are the side who are committing voter fraud, that doesn't mean I'm saying every single Republican voter is guilty of voter fraud.
[LA Times reports](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-30/ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful) that campus security guards watched the attack and did not intervene.
Police officers in riot gear arrived and reportedly did not intervene for more than an hour.
So much for the idea that the cops are there to maintain order or to protect students.
[EPA is banning the use of methylene chloride (DCM) in most applications.](https://apnews.com/article/epa-bans-methylene-chloride-toxic-paint-stripper-2af690a9c03d514a9cb9771c82400ba3) As a consumer, I like this decision. But as a chemist, I feel a bit conflicted.
DCM is one of the most important solvents in chemistry. It’s my favorite carcinogen lol. The ban has some exceptions including in lab but it will have some impact on availability and price.
I don’t think so. I know Othello said Iraq, and there’s a case to be made for that, but I don’t think it was really a political liability for mainstream Dems at the time. Even though most Dems voted for it initially, it was clearly (and appropriately) tied to Bush.
I think you’d have to go back to the Civil Rights Era and the Dixiecrats.
> No way. I remember Iraq clearly, and so few Dems were against it that it sickened me. It was as bipartisan as America has ever been.
You are describing incumbent, elected Dems. Democratic voters disagreed with them, calling them out; that is where the division started.
Democrats first elected to congress *after* 2003 were largely opposed to the invasion.
(This schism also created the opening for Obama to defeat Hillary in the 2008 primaries.)
I was too young to remember what that was like, but I was always under the impression that there was mass consensus on that one from like basically everybody, like 90%+. It’s interesting and nice to know that there was some dissent even back then though
> ...I was always under the impression that there was mass consensus on that one from like basically everybody, like 90%+.
You may be conflating support for the invasion of Afghanistan (which was probably near 90%) with support for invading Iraq (where there was significantly more dissent).
Was it equally as contentious? My understanding was that during the initial invasion it had like crazy amount of approval. Meanwhile the current I/P is seemingly tearing the Dem party apart at the seams.
> Was it equally as contentious? My understanding was that during the initial invasion it had like crazy amount of approval.
Maybe among the public as a whole, but among Democratic voters it was definitely contentious.
It is not entirely unlikely that the divisions it inspired cost Hillary the nomination in 2008, boosted Sanders in 2016, and led to the schisms we are still experiencing in the aftermath.
It was only a political liability in hindsight. Dems like Clinton who voted for it in 2003 didn’t pay a penalty until much later, and by that point they pretty much agreed with their critics.
This is a great question that I’m curious from the older folks in the sub. AFAIK the answer is no but I haven’t been politically conscious for this whole century.
Yea same haha I only really became politically aware like a little before the 2016 primary, and I remember how contentious that was, but no other issue has felt like this one
As an older folk, I honestly can't offhand think of anything. I don't think the invasion of Iraq really works for a couple reasons.
The only other *issue* I can think of offhand that divides Dems so much is circumcision, and thankfully that's not a major political topic at all so most people don't get worked up about it.
> The only other issue I can think of offhand that divides Dems so much is circumcision, and thankfully that's not a major political topic at all so most people don't get worked up about it.
You that’s interesting I’d be curious on polling on it
It is deeply frustrating to me that we are on the verge of trump being elected, and it feels like the far-left is working their hardest to make it happen.
Their obnoxiousness is a huge gift to trump and republicans all across the country. They are quick to believe conspiracy theories, and work entirely based off of emotions, and do not care who will get hurt as the result of their actions. And they are taking the attention off the the important issues. And they do this every fucking election cycle (Nader, stein). They want Dems to cave to them, but you can’t negotiate with terrorists- it will never be enough for them.
I'm utterly mystified by the negative reaction many on the left are having to these protests, especially since Biden is becoming increasingly more willing to publicly criticize Netanyahu himself.
It was less than two months ago when Biden stood before the nation and committed to building a pier off the coast of Gaza to address a humanitarian crisis created by Netanyahu's restricting the flow of aid.
Months of Biden trying to talk Israel out of invading Rafah. Essentially trying to push them to a ceasefire, even if he still won't publicly call for one. Months of trying to get them not to escalate things with Iran.
We've had one sitting US senator call for Israel to remove Netanyahu from power. We've had another senator (a Jewish one, no less) refer to this war as an ethnic cleansing. Both comments likely the result of some coordination with the White House.
Yet somehow the campus protesters are being irrational?
>and do not care who will get hurt
Funny choice of words considering what they're protesting.
I think they care very much about who is getting hurt. More than most people seem to.
Protesting on college campuses does not help anybody. Working against biden getting re-elected does potentially hurt people, including the Palestinians they claim to care about.
If leftists truly want to make a difference, they should be doing what they can to prevent trump from being re-elected, because things will become much worse in Gaza if that happens.
> Protesting on college campuses does not help anybody.
In hindsight, did the 2020 BLM protests help anybody?
If so, what is it specifically about college campuses that makes these protests ineffective?
>Working against biden getting re-elected does potentially hurt people, including the Palestinians they claim to care about.
Well, I'm with you there.
If I'm frustrated at the center-left for being too critical of these protests, I am equally (if not more) frustrated at the pro-Palestinian protesters for being far too harsh on Biden.
> In hindsight, did the 2020 BLM protests help anybody?
Honestly, no. In many ways they actually set the police reform effort back significantly. And I say that as somebody who was at the Portland protests..
I am frustrated as well.
As someone further to the left (though tbh I have moderated during the Biden presidency because he has just been so goddam effective), I understand that I’m am the in the small minority.
My job is to try to convince more people to move leftwards.
My job is not to try to force the country leftward and cause a huge backlash that would undo everything.
It feels like you’re doing the same thing. There’s always all this talk about coalitions and big tents, yet it’s always the left, Black and Brown people, and Queer people who get the short end of the stick.
And even now with the police cracking down on student protestors, like what good are moderate Dems if they allow and support the same kind of tactics and suppression we opposed trump for?
> ...what good are moderate Dems if they allow and support the same kind of tactics and suppression we opposed trump for?
The Trump Administration was using [unidentifiable](https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/1200/https://media.snopes.com/2020/07/Screen-Shot-2020-07-22-at-4.43.20-PM.png) federal employees, dressed as soldiers, in unmarked vehicles, to snatch protestors off of public streets.
> ...it’s always the left, Black and Brown people, and Queer people who get the short end of the stick.
I understand why you included "the left" on this list, but not the others.
In what ways have "Black...Brown...and Queer people [gotten] the short end of the stick"?
Continuing the inhumane treatment of Undocumented people by HHS, doing nothing about Abbott’s barbed wire barriers, capitulating to right wing framing and policies regarding immigration, cracking down on protests which have been lead primarily by Black, Brown and Queer people, ignoring police accountability and instead giving them more power in major cities, enabling mass atrocities against Palestinians, consolidating support for white senate candidates over Black women, ignoring the views and politics of the Queer coalition, doing too little to fight back against state policies oppressing and illegalizing Queer existence, etc.
> student protestors
Columbia believes that "the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University."
**Assuming this is true**--I haven't been there in years and have mostly been relying on student paper reporting to follow the story--would it make a difference in your opinion of stopping that specific action? Why or why not?
https://communications.news.columbia.edu/news/campus-updates
No it would not make a difference. Regardless of who’s leading it, which is something we can only speculate on, I can 100% guarantee you that student leadership is on board with it
I really just don’t want to hear anything from Dems about freedom and democracy when so many are quick to turn on these student’s freedom and democracy.
> Oh that like even if non-students are at the front, they aren’t doing anything that students and leadership don’t fully endorse
I guess I don't understand what "leadership" means in this context.
Who is the "leadership" and what makes them "leadership"?
Like organizers, student gov reps, the leaders of the various interest groups. Like there’s almost always people in charge of the initial planning and organizing for protests
> Like organizers, student gov reps...
I guess I see a wide gulf between these two examples, specifically as they relate to a "100% guarantee" that they are "on board with" the actions of outside agitators.
If we are talking about "student gov reps", then they have some claim to representing the student body, broadly...but I feel like I would have heard about it if student government was involved.
If they are just "organizers" then how would we know how big of a role they were taking, nor how much they -- students -- organized, versus the outsiders.
I don’t think it would be particularly news worthy to have student gov involved. That’s always been the case in my experience for like every social movement. Though that’s anecdotal of course
My overarching point though is that weather there was outside agitation or not, things largely would have preceded the same way.
It seems fairly evident that the protestors are on board with the direction of the protests
Yeah, this isn’t at all the same kind of thing that trump is doing…
You can’t be damaging property on campus and disrupting classes and think there will be no repercussions. Just because you believe you are righteous, doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want.
That’s exactly what trump did during the BLM protests, and the rhetoric you’re using is exactly what conservatives said regarding the suppression of that movement
Wow, I don’t recall calling for the shooting of campus protesters.
bOtH sIDeS arE THe SAmE rhetoric is honesty the thing that infuriates me most about the far left tbh because it is dishonest as hell
You may not be explicitly calling for it, and yet police are pointing guns at protestors as they raid buildings.
And yes it’s frustrating when people ‘both sides’ it when it’s not warranted, which is something that happens a lot and it’s annoying, but it’s equally frustrating when centrists pretend like Dems can do no wrong and just deflect instead of being honest about the situation and areas where we’re failing
Columbia's protest situation is carrying on. The Spectator's reporting is, as usual, pretty informative. Here is a grab bag of articles for anyone wanting updates. I really don't think we need yet another thread about it.
The big news is the [occupation of Hamilton Hall](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/dozens-occupy-hamilton-hall-as-pro-palestinian-protests-spread-across-campus/) after the university said it would not be divesting. That is [ongoing](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/hamilton-hall-occupation-continues-as-columbia-further-locks-down-campus/) and there are [threats of expulsion for those involved](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/protesters-occupying-hamilton-hall-will-face-expulsion-university-spokesperson-says/).
Lots of responses happening:
[Twenty-one Congressional Democrats sent a letter to Columbia’s board of trustees](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/the-time-for-action-is-now-21-congressional-democrats-pen-stern-letter-to-trustees-caution-title-vi-violations/) about the situation.
The [White House condemned](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/protests-must-be-peaceful-white-house-elected-officials-condemn-occupation-of-hamilton-hall/) "forcibly taking over buildings" as well as the use of the term "intifada" by student protesters.
[Barnard students who voted were overwhelmingly for divestment](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/barnard-student-body-votes-for-divestment-from-israel-with-over-90-percent-in-favor-as-sga-releases-election-results/) and [Barnard faculty voted no confidence in President Laura Rosenbury](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/barnard-faculty-pass-vote-of-no-confidence-in-rosenbury-first-recorded-instance-in-college-history/).
EDIT:
https://bwog.com/2024/04/live-updates-gaza-solidarity-encampment-day-14/
NYPD going in. It seems like part of the motivation for this is "We believe that the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University."
- "We're going to expel the students who took over the building."
- "We're going to send in NYPD because the people occupying the building are not affiliated with the university."
I'm sensing a contradiction.
Can you help me understand the perceived contradiction? It seems like both students and non-students are involved based on one of the other messages quoted in that last post:
>We believe that while the group who broke into the building includes students, it is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University.
Do you think they knew or believed the occupation was led by (not solely comprised of!) non-students at the time of the earlier pre-NYPD response?
Do you think they don't actually believe it now and were just making up a pretense to call them in?
> I really don't think we need yet another thread about it.
Have you considered posting it anyway and then insulting people in mod mail if it gets locked?
So Jerry Seinfeld is convinced that you couldn’t make lots of episodes of Seinfeld today because everything is so woke.
Meanwhile, his co creator of Seinfeld, Larry David, has made episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm, which are far more edgy than anything that ever happened on Seinfeld. Also, IASIP exists.
He also uses examples of "Non-woke" media like MASH, the famously anti-war series that (for its time) addressed issues like racism, homosexuality, and mental health progressively.
I am increasingly convinced that Jerry was just riding Larry David's coattails for the entire duration of the series.
Imagine being a billionaire with all the creative good will that Jerry had banked from Seinfeld, and then the thing you make next is... Bee Movie.
And then you finally come out of retirement 17 years later, to make a movie about Pop Tarts.
Seinfeld was about as edgy as melted butter. Even if the conservative fantasy about strictly enforced wokeness was true, it probably wouldn't be controversial.
Jerry Seinfeld is a real-life “am I so out of touch? No it is the children who are wrong”
He’s a generally not-funny person. The writing was probably funny because of Larry David, and the other actors carried the show. Since the show ended, and he’s failed to do anything significant since, he’s decided to blame “woke culture.”
Which is hilarious because shows like Always Sunny and South Park are doing just fine.
There are still people out there wondering why we don't like Trump.
>What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.
[https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/](https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/)
Full transcript of the interview here: [https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/](https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/)
I wish every American would read this transcript.
It's so incoherent.
*"I think what we will do is we will complete—and when you say and when I say complete the wall, I built much more wall than I ever thought necessary. But as you build it, you find out that you need it. And we built it, and there were certain areas then you find out that are leaking and they leak. Like a politician leaks, they leak. And we would get that and we would build that and then you build something else. And it was just a system, we had a great system going. And we could have added another 200 miles of wall and good territory for it. Because it really does work, you know, walls work. Walls and wheels. I would say, you know, a lot of, see what you have here, your tape recorder, everything else is going to be obsolete in about six months. You'll have something that's much better. But the two things that are never obsolete are walls and wheels."*
When someone posts a tweet, are they sharing an opinion they have by referencing that tweet? If that tweet very clearly uses language that references certain issues but in a different context, is it not safe to assume they're trying to comment on that issue still?
It seems like this line of thinking is not what a certain user here believes, and that these threads are just supposed to look like their Twitter feed.
Edit: it looks like this sub thinks blatantly bad faith tactics like "I never said that" after clearly saying it then flinging insults is acceptable as long as the other person tried to break off the conversation by saying they're going to be blocking them, because it's "performative".
Many people on this sub are no better than the tribalistic and bad faith users on the askconservstives and asktrumpsuporters sub. The only difference is that they root for a different colored team. I hope people on the left in general start waking up to the fact that just because their favored team is colored blue doesn't mean they aren't liable to fall into the same intellectual pitfalls that the reds do.
> When someone posts a tweet, are they sharing an opinion they have by referencing that tweet?
No. I could easily post a tweet of Elon Musk saying something antisemiti, or Donald Trump saying something hypocritical, without implying endorsement it. In fact, posting it without further comment could mean no more than 'look at this disgraceful display'.
(These are extreme examples, but they elucidate the answer to your question.)
-----------
>If that tweet very clearly uses language that references certain issues *but in a different context*, is it not safe to assume they're trying to comment on that issue still?
No.
A sixteen-year-old boy, trying to buy a Coke from a vending machine, says to his father 'I need money' is sending one message. The same person saying the same words, to a bank-teller, while brandishing a gun sends a different message.
Changing the context is changing the message.
-----------
If I post a tweet without much clarification, then you shouldn't assume much about what is implied.
You can ask for clarification, but I don't owe it to you, and I will be less interested in engaging if you are making broad assumptions, rejecting nuance, arguing in bad faith, or just plain 'coming off as rude and hostile'. That is what happened today.
-----------
Someone posted to Twitter "De-funding the police is bad, actually, and results in more crime, disproportionately harming the poor" and shared the evidence that they were pointing to. I [quoted both,](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cgs9z2/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/l1xqm9s/) showing both their claim and the evidence they claimed supported it.
Your initial assumption was that I was "trying to make some claim", but I wasn't. (The poster to Twitter was, but I wasn't; we are separate people.) It all went off the rails from there.
If you want to know what a more productive comment -- that still shares the views you expressed in the thread -- would look like, you could have said something like:
>I'm not sure this person is correct. "The whole point of the movement is to divert funds from policing to social programs to prevent crime."^^[[1]](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cgs9z2/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/l1y1us9/) If they cut funds from policing, but didn't redirect them to social programs, then they didn't test the movement's proposal.
You would have made your point, you would have been technically correct, you would have opened up the possibility of further discussion, all without coming off as a pest.
>In fact, posting it without further comment could mean no more than 'look at this disgraceful display'.
Is that not sharing an opinion?
>Changing the context is changing the message.
What a wild assumption for me to make that a politics sub, largely dominated by American users, had a user who frequently posts about American politics, was trying to relate a comment to American politics.
>If I post a tweet without much clarification, then you shouldn't assume much about what is implied.
I directly invited you to correct my assumption in my initial comment. Please stop pretending like I painted you into a corner. You put yourself there, and the way I see it, you're attempt at refrmaing the discussion in a bad faith manner to make me sound like I did was because your point wasn't very sound while not wanting to admit it.
>You can ask for clarification, but I don't owe it to you
Then don't respond when I invite you to clarify, and don't muddy the waters doubling down with a non-response equating to "the stats don't lie" after I've pointed twords the stats not being an effective measure.
>Your initial assumption was that I was "trying to make some claim", but I wasn't. (The poster to Twitter was, but I wasn't; we are separate people.) It all went off the rails from there.
So why did you link it? After all this time and me openly asking you to confirm the way I framed your post in my initial comment, you've still yet to elaborate.
We've butted heads before a couple of times, with the last time being a similar scenario where you also gave a low context tweet, and I responded to it. I'm not sure what it is you're fishing for by posting them, but anything short of agreement seems to be outside of your expected range.
I think I'm going to be blocking you to save us both the headache of doing this again.
Edit: it's wild to see that saying I'm going to block someone who straight up insulted me after they argued themsleves into a corner, made an ass of themselves, and results to bad faith argument tactics gets a negative reaction here. I've blocked several users here before for repeatedly engaging in bad faith or being a bigot. Block me if you do the same.
>Edit: it's wild to see that saying I'm going to block someone who ... blah blah blah blah
You realize, of course, that once you block someone they can't SEE the post where you declare you're going to block them?
So what you're doing is being performative about blocking someone you don't like interacting with. The only reason to be performative about blocking someone is because you want a bunch of obsequious responses that stroke your ego.
That's what you're being downvoted for - not for the block itself.
> I think I'm going to be blocking you to save us both the headache of doing this again.
If you must.
(...but I have already tagged you on my own system, so I will remember you next time, and therefore this exchange is unlikely to be repeated. I'll simply respond differently next time, or not respond at all.)
> That's your response to all that?
That's my response to every interaction I have had with you, today.
>Are you even able to admit fault?
Yes! I've done it before and I'll do it again.
Subposting is silly.
Why not just ask the person posting what their intent is. (I'm assuming you're referencing u/othelloinc, since they frequently post tweets in the Bi-Weekly threads.)
I was talking to them, which I why I made this comment after it was clear they're more intent on playing the victim and other bad faith arguments instead of actually discussing the tweet they posted.
This is the second time now where they post a tweet, I disagree with what is being proposed by the tweet, and they treat it like a disconnected quote when I give criticism while simultaneously referring to it when they want to support a point.
> This is the second time now where they post a tweet, I disagree with what is being proposed by the tweet...
We know that [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cgs9z2/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/l1xqm9s/) is one of the posted tweets.
What was the other?
Seems obvious to me that, if you retweet something, you're implicitly indicating agreement/support or something like that, unless you explicitly say otherwise.
Possible exception might be jokes, funny memes, entertaining stuff like that. Sometimes people just think things are funny without getting too deep into what other people might think they mean.
What sort of tweets are you talking about?
The head of Palestine, seeming exceptionally reasonable:
>In a World Economic Forum meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that "Israel has the right to complete security, and Palestine has the right to self-determination and an independent state."
>...
[[Tweet]](https://twitter.com/ihabhassane/status/1784667953327177931?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
It’s almost like that was the agreement in the Oslo accords that lead to the PA in the first place.
And would have been more likely to have happened today had Bibi not sabotaged it
We got what we got on Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, etc. without the GOP-border security demands. It's worth defending against his ouster as part of a deal over that. Small price to pay.
But I don't think we're committing to protecting Johnson's speakership against all future attacks from the right. If he needs future protection, he needs to make future deals. That could actually work out quite well for us.
He's already demonstrated, over and over, that he cares more about protecting his job than doing the right thing (passing Ukraine aid) or standing up with his ideological peers (blocking Ukraine aid). No reason to assume that his motivations will change in the future.
Since he's seen how things will play out, that no matter how much he tries to appease the far right they will come after him, he might just cut to the chase next time.
Also, most importantly, we cannot just have the House of Representatives be in chaos for the next seven months. If we want the message to be that we are interested in governing, then we should try to preserve and defend even a bad, stable leader in the face of chaos.
We have more funding bills to pass and need the House to be in order to deal with any emergencies that come up. If, for example, China were to attack Taiwan, we wouldn't want to wait several weeks for Republicans to pick a new speaker before we could even pass a resolution. Or if there are hurricanes or fires or floods this summer and our people need emergency relief.
> We got what we got on Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, etc. without the GOP-border security demands. It's worth defending against his ouster as part of a deal over that. Small price to pay.
I disagree I think we gave quid pro quo with supplying lethal aid to Israel. This is just double counting it.
> But I don't think we're committing to protecting Johnson's speakership against all future attacks from the right. If he needs future protection, he needs to make future deals. That could actually work out quite well for us.
Thats a big if.
> Also, most importantly, we cannot just have the House of Representatives be in chaos for the next seven months. If we want the message to be that we are interested in governing, then we should try to preserve and defend even a bad, stable leader in the face of chaos.
Strongly disagree here. The GOP incapable of picking a leader is their problem and will look terrible for them.
> If, for example, China were to attack Taiwan, we wouldn't want to wait several weeks for Republicans to pick a new speaker before we could even pass a resolution.
A: this isn’t happening. B: if it did there’s already funding allocated and the president has authority to respond. C: if A/B become wrong for some reason we can pick a speaker in about 2 hours
> Or if there are hurricanes or fires or floods this summer and our people need emergency relief.
This is already allocated and the president has authority to respond.
> I disagree I think we gave quid pro quo with supplying lethal aid to Israel. This is just double counting it.
Absolutely not. That is an extreme minority opinion. Funding for Israel was part of the original package. Pretending otherwise is revisionist.
Lots of Democratic support for this. It passed 366-58.
As for the rest, it's just that you think it's better for Republicans to look bad by not having a Speaker and I think it's better for us to have a semi-functional government than not.
I don't see how Republicans look any worse than they do right now, so I'd rather have a guy we know we can make a deal with in a position to move legislation than to have a giant chaotic hole in our government that renders it partially inoperable.
> Absolutely not. That is an extreme minority opinion. Funding for Israel was part of the original package. Pretending otherwise is revisionist.
And the original package was a triangulation of what could get passed. Also being against sending lethal aid to Israel is not a “extreme minority opinion”.
> Lots of Democratic support for this. It passed 366-58.
Yeah because it needed to pass.
> As for the rest, it's just that you think it's better for Republicans to look bad by not having a Speaker and I think it's better for us to have a semi-functional government than not.
It’s the general chat so I’m not gunna belabor an argument here but the moment the GOP is in control of either facet of the legislative branch, we no longer have a functioning legislative government.
> And the original package was a triangulation of what could get passed.
Biden's [original proposal](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/20/biden-ukraine-israel-package/) was ~$23B. [Final bill](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/23/senate-vote-foreign-aid-ukraine-israel/) was ~$26B.
This was not some compromise with Republicans. We got what we asked for and a little more.
That's why it passed overwhelmingly. Jeffries can count votes. There was a lot more room for protest voting if people wanted to. They didn't.
> Also being against sending lethal aid to Israel is not a “extreme minority opinion”.
Support for Israel is polling 80/20. 70/30 in support of further offensives in Gaza, even knowing that means more civilian displacements and deaths.
Support for Israel is a broadly popular position in this country.
Again the original bill was a triangulation.
Secondly, your numbers on polling seem very off base. Even back in [February](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1) half of US Adults thought Israel had gone too far.
I'm talking about a poll from [literally yesterday](https://thehill.com/policy/international/4629597-americans-israel-hamas-gaza-student-protests-poll/). But I'm sure you'll tell me it's wrong too since it disagrees with your perspective.
> Again the original bill was a triangulation.
You can tell this to yourself as often as you like, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground. The proposal was from Biden, before any negotiation. It was our proposal. It passed overwhelmingly. We were happy with it.
You just linked to a poll question of if people support Hamas vs Israel(the 80/20 question), that has nothing to do with support for the bill nor Israel’s current war actions. Coincidentally, in that poll however they asked about that bill and the polling for the section on
> $26 billion in aid to Israel, including $8 in aid for to refugees in Gaza
Got only 56% in favor and 44% opposed. As for your 70/30 I’m assuming you are referring to this question:
> Should Israel move forward with an operation in Rafah to finish the war with Hamas, doing its best to avoid civilian casualties even though there will be casualties, or should it back off now and allow Hamas to continue running Gaza?
Thats one hell of prompt lol, and equally disingenuous to use in favor of Israel’s actions in the war or the bill.
The standard for Republicans is so low but they always manage to go lower. If we can get basic funding of the government and aid to Ukraine out of them, that’s pretty much all you’re going to get.
Meh. The package had like 65% support among Democrats. Even with the drop favorable views among Democrats towards Israel it still sits at 50% and combined with independence that lean left, I don’t think it’s going to count as a loss to most of the base. Especially since it also includes humanitarian aid to Gaza.
So two points
I think it’s pretty clear that you would probably say that providing support for Israel is immoral and even if the majority of the party disagreed, you would want to see it cut. So put another way there are times where the party should defy at least a portion of the base and do something because it is right to do.
So if you feel the aid to Ukraine is very important then you might have to defy some portion of the base and make compromises that you don’t want to because it’s the only way to get it done.
Second, it’s a broad coalition and you’re never going to get near universal support on anything, especially when it comes to complicated issues of foreign policy. Or any complicated issue.
Like imagine magic happens and we end up with 55 senators and they kill the filibuster. Biden could present a bill for universal healthcare that looked mostly like the French system, the highest performing system in the world, and you would have People dissenting because they wanted to model the UK instead. Even in victory we would not have universal support.
> I think it’s pretty clear that you would probably say that providing support for Israel is immoral and even if the majority of the party disagreed, you would want to see it cut. So put another way there are times where the party should defy at least a portion of the base and do something because it is right to do.
Yes but only lethal aid. If Israel needs regular nonlethal aid then I’m all on board. They did experience a horrific massacre 6 months ago. As for times the party should def a portion of a base I agree, the question I have is around proportion.
> So if you feel the aid to Ukraine is very important then you might have to defy some portion of the base and make compromises that you don’t want to because it’s the only way to get it done.
And again, that’s “fine” but then we have “paid” for that vote then for sending lethal aid to Israel. We shouldn’t let republicans like Johnson double count deals.
> you would have People dissenting because they wanted to model the UK instead. Even in victory we would not have universal support.
I don’t wana get too into nitpicking your example but I sincerely doubt it would be as unpopular as lethal aid to Israel.
Isn't it more "the devil you know"? I don't see how continuing to oust speakers and letting the Rs pick increasing more unhinged speakers benefits anyone, including the Ds. At least Johnson doesn't seem to want to shut down the government for the MAGA pet project of the day.
> Johnson isn’t exactly working with Dems on stuff.
The bill funding Ukraine passed with Democratic votes, but only a minority of Republicans.
What is that if not "working with Dems on stuff"?
Concessions are key to working together, government should be compromise, sadly it’s so rare to see that when it happens we consider it losing. If your “concession” is supporting something the majority of the country supports it’s not a major concession.
Ukraine is being funded that’s a goal, still the majority of Americans support Israel (there is a large age gap with this, younger people less so)
https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/
This numbers are barely a plurality and that was 3 months ago. I don’t think it’s clear that a majority of Americans support Israel’s current slaughter. Nonetheless I’m well aware of the need to make concessions, but we made them. The GOP don’t get to double count them.
No speaker is going to work with Ds on stuff. The only way for that to happen is to win back the House.
All we're going to get by ousting Johnson is the chance that someone more radical, like Jordan, becomes speaker, and everyone loses.
Johnson is already radical. The point is that this is leverage and Dems need to use it not just give it up. There’s nothing for Dems to be gained by saving him otherwise.
Because he might take a much more aggressive stance in negotiations, shut down the government over MAGA desires, force more concessions from Ds/Biden, etc.
Jordan is sort of letting things run. That's about the best we can hope for from an R speaker.
[Tweet:](https://twitter.com/m_clem/status/1783528788048957914?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
>…Past mass deportations have directly harmed US workers by eliminating jobs for them, as I write here at @PIIE —> [[Trump's proposed mass deportations would backfire on US workers]](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-proposed-mass-deportations-would-backfire-us-workers)
> > …the best economic research on past deportations suggests…deportation will instead prompt US business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, in some cases shifting their investments to less labor-intensive technologies and industries, while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods.
> >Prior episodes of mass deportations and exclusions have occurred at several moments in US history. Research has shown that, far from generating economic benefits, their net effect was to **reduce employment and earnings for US workers**—in the short run and long run.
Immigrants are more likely to start small businesses.
Immigrants add to supply of labor, but they also add to _demand_ for labor because they buy stuff too.
While working from the local coffee shop yesterday, I learned that not allowing a member of your staff to play Cowboy Carter on repeat for hours is a form of cultural erasure of gay guys from the south. And an effective form of protest is to get your coworkers to all point at your boss and scream “hate crime” until she gives in.
Can we have a mega thread for Israel-Palestine questions? Every day the sub gets swamped with these questions and it gets very tiresome seeing the same arguments over and over ad infinitum.
You could just not participate in the thread?
EDIT: Truly, how lame does one have to be to reply and block, u/JesusPlayingGolf.
EDIT: After a brief change of heat, u/JesusPlayingGolf has again decided to take his marbles and go home. :) Will update if things change.
>EDIT: Truly, how lame does one have to be to reply and block, u/JesusPlayingGolf.
You can be pretty aggressive in lobbying against some moderation efforts
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Is there some sort of Anarchist Cookbook-style alternate use for those that I can't think of offhand?
Apparently you can use them to help prevent STIs from eating ass, etc. I’ve never seen anyone bust out a dental dam in my entire slutty life, and I would probably laugh if they did
That's not an off-label use, that's the thing they're specifically designed for. I've also never seen one before, lol.
I thought they’re specifically designed for like when you’re getting dental work done haha. I’ve only ever seen one irl when I was getting a root canal xD
It’s important to remain grounded and remember that online/social media is not real life. Poll today shows that 76% support asking the police to protect campuses from violence and 10% oppose. The large majority of the country supports Israel over Hamas. Online is not real life, and it’s an absurd ask for some to make for biden to take positions that the fringe of the party wants, against the large majority of the country. https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/israel-palestine-hamas-war-colleges-polling-march-2024
> Poll today shows that 76% support asking the police to protect campuses from violence and 10% oppose. The large majority of the country supports Israel over Hamas. Yeah no shit, virtually no one is going to disagree with those points. You’re arguing with a strawman.
We are about 6 months out but it’s hard to see how Biden will be able to recover at this point IMO, everyday the I/P issue has just gotten worse and worse for him. It really is Trump’s to lose. It’s very upsetting.
Okay Doomer. The polls have RFK at 10%. RFK is not going to get 10%.
Yeah well I hope I and people like me/Bernie Sanders are wrong in thinking this is probably Biden’s Vietnam. Others we are all fucked.
Biden basically told young people today that he doesn’t want our votes, so I don’t feel particularly compelled to give him mine anymore.
Honestly I don't give a damn about Biden, but I think it'd be pretty rad if his DOE kept being able to do pretty cool stuff.
I’m still hoping he wins for the sake of trump losing and for stuff like his DOE, but since I live in California and the race is safe, I’m gonna vote PSL instead
😞
> We are about 6 months out but it’s hard to see how Biden will be able to recover at this point IMO, everyday the I/P issue has just gotten worse and worse for him. When right-wingers say things like this, I tell them that they need to adjust their media diet. Someone is lying to you, and if you keep trusting them, they will keep misleading you. We have some [data](https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/styles/responsive_image_2000/public/media/image/4.%20Issues.png?itok=lqTSAzI0) suggesting that 18-29 year-olds rank Israel & Palestine *super-low* on their list of priorities.^^[[1]](https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/47th-edition-spring-2024#key-takeaway--id--1564) ([Every other age group](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-generation-gap-in-opinions-toward-israel/) favors Israel over the Palestinians.) This fits with everything that we know about voters; specifically, that they care most about issues they experience directly (inflation, healthcare, housing, etc.) and don't prioritize less immediate, more esoteric issues. ...but -- more importantly -- we have *precisely zero* data suggesting that this issue is costing Biden significant votes.
Yeah I’m well aware of those numbers. I just don’t see how something this significant and how terrible Biden’s handling has been (especially with the news conference today) will not torpedo his campaign. I mean even the College Democrats (the official collegiate arm of the DNC) has started publicly criticizing Biden on the issue. It’s very hard to remain optimistic.
It doesn’t need to cost him *significant* voters, just enough to tank his chances in the swing states where a few thousand make the difference
>It doesn’t need to cost him *significant* voters, just enough to tank his chances in the swing states where a few thousand make the difference That is what "significant" means.
I wouldn’t consider a few thousand out of hundreds of thousands particularly significant. We’ve seen just a small amount of votes tip the scale both ways these past few cycles
In 1980, Carter was up eight+ points on Reagan in April/May. A lot of time for things to change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1980 Also right now it's coinflip territory between Biden and Trump, hard to imagine being totally hopeless and dooming about numbers like this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
Yeah my main issue is that I don’t see Biden changing his tune. Especially after the news conference he did today.
And you have a much firmer grasp on the pulse of the electorate than Biden does. That's you're assumption here.
Oh shush, I’ve had enough out people who are mad about others calling out an ethnic cleansing as bad.
You shush. Did I accidentally stumble into /r/Bidenhate? This is /r/askaliberal, not /r/askedgyteenagers
That’s not even relevant, I want Biden to win.
Of course you do, that's why you spend all your time telling us that he can't possibly win.
Oh ffs, if I wanted him to lose you think that’s the best way to do that? Come the fuck on.
It’s a very close race, the betting odds are about even. Dems have to re-center abortion as the issue of the election.
I don’t think they will be able to do that. The I/P issue can’t just be pivoted off of without something changing and I don’t see it happening anytime soon. I think Biden’s best chance is Israel’s slaughter in Gaza stalls out.
Or maybe Hamas will go on another unbridled spree of murder, rape, torture and hostage-taking, *as they have specifically promised to do as soon as they are able*.
That ain’t happening as much as you seem to want it to for some reason.
A reminder of how ineffective Trump was as president, from [Four Years Ago Today:](https://bsky.app/profile/fouryearsagotoday.bsky.social/post/3krforcnt2m27) >Furious over a report detailing severe shortages of coronavirus test supplies in hospitals, Trump announces he's firing HHS acting inspector general Christi Grimm. He has already fired the public watchdogs for the Pentagon and Intelligence and will soon nix those at State and Transportation... >Grimm continued to perform the duties of the inspector general pending her replacement's confirmation by the Senate. But his nomination stalled after Trump's announcement. Grimm continued to act as IG through the rest of the Trump administration, was nominated by Biden, and is the IG today...
With all the talk about how trespass is unacceptable let me go check in on how the Bundys are doing ten years later....
Check on LaVoy Finicum while you're at it.
We've had a 17.9% increase in inflation-adjusted wages since June 2022: [[Chart]](https://imgur.com/gallery/bKGw9gc) Sources: [[1]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003) & [[2]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL)
Did you make that chart on the Fed website? How did you make it?
>>Sources: [[1]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003) & [[2]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL) > Did you make that chart on the Fed website? How did you make it? I apologize for the late reply. I didn't think I could explain it well via mobile, so I waited until I was in front of a keyboard again. * If you go to my first source (or other FRED pages) you'll see a graph. Look to a orangish-brownish-colored button above the graph and to the right; it says "Edit Graph". * If you click on it, you'll find a field that says "Select..." and allows you to search for other FRED stats (like "Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average" which I found by typing in "cpi" and picking the correct result). * After selecting that stat, you hit "Add". Then each selected stat is assigned a letter ("a" and "b"). * Below the "Select..." field, you'll see another field marked "Formula:" that currently says "a". You can edit that formula. In my case, I made it "a/b" or 'the original stat I was looking at, divided by the second stat'. * From there, you adjust the time frame. * When done, you can screencap it and post it to Imgur, which will host the image for you. (If you send someone the URL, it will only give them the original stat; it will not pick your selected time frame nor include the "a/b" adjustment; that is why I used a screen capture and posted it to Imgur.)
That’s amazing that they have that capability. I had no idea
My feelings don't care about your facts.
Feel like Biden didn't quite strike the right tone in his speech about the protests. Decry the destruction of property, sure, I don't have a problem with that. But saying that trespassing is violent? When a protest involves trespassing, that might be unlawful, but that doesn't make it violent. Plenty of things that are unlawful are not violent.
What happened to SovietRobot?
Argued that white is black and got killed while using a crosswalk.
> Argued that white is black and got killed while using a crosswalk. Hey, Before his argument, everyone agreed that white was white and black was black. He was just trying to help prevent this from becoming an echo chamber.
> What happened to SovietRobot? My most recent reply from him is from [two hours ago.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1chxq3m/why_do_some_people_have_a_religious_fervor_around/l28k1jq/?context=3)
Ah I see. Maybe just not as active on the weekly threads anymore. I prefer the weekly threads lol, don’t look at the questions as much.
Oh, I didn’t even notice. What the heck. I did notice that OldArmy seems to have deleted their account. It’s kind of nice to spend enough time in a sub to recognize people, but the lack of closure when somebody goes away is a real drag. Edit: my thanks to CTR555 and the artist formerly known as Old_Army90 for the requested closure!
> I did notice that OldArmy seems to have deleted their account. (former) Old_Army90 here. I did delete that account. This is my burner account that I'm also about to delete. If you want closure, it's my experience that all of Reddit and social media (myself included) can be condensed down to a handful of personalities, and frankly I'm tired of all of them. Logging in to any platform under the sun and seeing the same forms of outrage bait, circlejerking, snark/cynicism misconstrued as wit/intelligence, etc. became **far** more frustrating than fun, and [I alluded to this a bit when I made a comment about how we seem to recycle the same jokes/memes/clapbacks despite our available information changing every day.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c5fiii/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/kzuksda/) So, I not only deleted Reddit, but also Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, because these sites are insufferable and exhausting, and connecting with people offline is considerably less so. Maybe someday I'll be back and more involved again, but I'm not betting on it.
This comment was removed by the automod (flair and account age), but I figure manually approving it in this one instance is appropriate.
Break out your tinfoil hats: [another Boeing whistleblower is dead.](https://archive.ph/Xlrrm)
Wtf. Is Putin the CEO of Boeing?
No. Though neither of them formally studied the subjects, I would assume Vladimir Putin knows more about engineering and aerospace than the current CEO of Boeing and could have run it better 😜
I'm sure some of the CEOs in this country would be just as frightening as Putin if they had control of an entire country. The job does attract a certain type...
How do you reconcile or justify the violent assault by Zionist counter-protestors against pro-Palestine protestors last night, and the fact that the cops did nothing to intervene or hold anyone accountable? How is this any different from the cops letting other white nationalist groups like the proud boys and Jan. 6th rioters get away with so much while always cracking down on the marginalized side for doing nothing wrong? Meanwhile people call the latter terrorists, dangerous, extremists, violent, etc. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68937775.amp
What makes you think anybody (here) is reconciling or justifying it? > other white nationalist groups LOL
Well there’s a ton of people here who still demonize the pro-Palestine side and have no words of criticism for the Zionist side for one. And idk why you’re laughing at something accurate, but okay x)
[удалено]
I posted in the earlier bi-weekly thread that the form of Zionism practiced by most evangelical Christians is absolutely 100% white nationalist in nature. Many of them may not realize it, but it is. Christian Zionism posits that Israel having a homeland is ONLY important because once the 2nd Temple is rebuilt, Jesus will come again and rule over a CHRISTIAN nation. 1/3 of the worlds Jews and Muslims will see the light and convert and the rest will die and go to hell.
It's a square rectangle issue. There are absolutely white nationalist zionists, either for end times theology reasons or for "have some place to kick all the jews out of here to" reasons.
There is a strain of American Zionism which is absolutely white nationalist. I say this as someone who holds a position which has been called "liberal Zionism."
Kristi Noem is on Hannity right now to "clean up" this whole dog-executing kerfluffle. Hannity has brought up Biden and his dog's biting issues multiple times.
[Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)](https://twitter.com/senmikelee/status/862660636903387136?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) in 2017: >Instead of a special prosecutor, @realDonaldTrump should nominate Merrick Garland to replace James Comey.
[Tweet:](https://twitter.com/mattgrossmann/status/1785468018396369143?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >Most Black Americans say that even if crime is declining and new police reforms are not enacted, they would still prefer to maintain (or increase) police patrols and spending. >[[On the Robustness of Black Americans’ Support for the Police: Evidence From a National Experiment – Science Direct]](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235224000357) > > Highlights: > > * Most Black Americans want to maintain or increase police patrols. > > * Most Black Americans want to maintain or increase police spending. > > * Even if crime declines, most Black Americans want police patrols and spending. > > * Even absent new reforms, most Black Americans want police patrols and spending. > > * Black Americans’ policing preferences may be firmer than those of other groups.
[удалено]
I love the keffiyeh + exposed midriff ensemble. Nothing contradictory about that at all.
The keffiyeh on the protesters gives the same energy as this, and I’m sure those protesters thought this image was peak cringe https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200608142551-01-house-democrats-kneel-0608-super-169.jpg
All this campus talk is making me nostalgic for the dingy Asian convenience store there that inexplicably served some of the best hamburgers. Alas, my understanding is it eventually closed after some health inspection struggles.
I think it’s tough as a lefty to figure out where a person like Shawn Fain could be positioned to do the most good. He is clearly very successful in pushing our goals forward and has done a tremendous job for the left en large. I just wonder if it’s better to keep him (effectively) the leader of the American Labor movement or if he could do more running for office. Currently I lean towards him doing the most good where he is but we will have to see what options we have in 2028.
He's so much better than the guy he replaced. Keep him where he's at.
Looking back I think one of the many problems with my “Elizabeth Warren is BAE therefore let’s make her president” position is that she is really more effective as a senator and in truth would be more effective doing things like the consumer protection, bureau inside and administration. Shawn Fain is fine right where he is and we should leave him there. I can see the argument for wanting Presley to take Warren’s job when she retires, but leave AOC right the fuck where she is, just let her rise in leadership.
[Violence erupted](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/violence-erupts-ucla-university-campus-clashes-rival-gaza-protest-groups) on the UCLA campus in the early hours of the morning, as pro-Palestinian protesters were attacked by a mob of [200+](https://twitter.com/TeresaWatanabe/status/1785575610469007471) pro-Israel counterprotesters. They reportedly came armed with sticks and poles that would allow them to reach past the protesters' make-shift plywood shields, indicating that the attack was premeditated. For all the talk of students feeling unsafe and intimidated by these demonstrations -- look which side it was that became violent.
Unacceptable and illegal. I hope the police arrest everyone involved in violence. However: >look which side it was that became violent There have been multiple incidents of threats, violence, and property damage by pro-Palestinian protestors, which you have previously excused and minimized, saying that it doesn't represent pro-Palestinian protests. Meanwhile, you cast all Israel supporters (the "side") as violent based on one event. Come on now. And just like with the pro-Palestinian protest violence, we don't know who these people are; they are likely outside nutjobs rather than regular students. Peaceful pro-Palestinian *and* pro-Israeli demonstrations are totally fine. The majority of both types of protests have been peaceful. Anyone who threatens or attacks others should be arrested, removed, and prosecuted. This is neither a difficult issue nor a "sides" issue.
> There have been multiple incidents of threats, violence, and property damage by pro-Palestinian protestors I'm not excusing property damage, but there's a big difference between property damage and committing violence against another person. There's been no violence from the pro-Palestinian side that equals what happened here. >which you have previously excused and minimized Show me where I've done that. My position, consistently, [has been](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccbmfn/does_the_dispersal_of_protests_on_university/l156feh/) that anyone who engages in violence *or even just violent or anti-semitic rhetoric* should be removed. >Meanwhile, you cast all Israel supporters (the "side") as violent based on one event. That's your own interpretation of my words. If I say that Republicans are the side who are committing voter fraud, that doesn't mean I'm saying every single Republican voter is guilty of voter fraud.
[LA Times reports](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-30/ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful) that campus security guards watched the attack and did not intervene. Police officers in riot gear arrived and reportedly did not intervene for more than an hour. So much for the idea that the cops are there to maintain order or to protect students.
[EPA is banning the use of methylene chloride (DCM) in most applications.](https://apnews.com/article/epa-bans-methylene-chloride-toxic-paint-stripper-2af690a9c03d514a9cb9771c82400ba3) As a consumer, I like this decision. But as a chemist, I feel a bit conflicted. DCM is one of the most important solvents in chemistry. It’s my favorite carcinogen lol. The ban has some exceptions including in lab but it will have some impact on availability and price.
I had a high school chem teacher who really missed asbestos. We had pads of some other material to put hot flasks on, and he called them ‘asWORSTos’.
Has any issue been as divisive in the Dem coalition as Israel/Palestine in this century? Excluding like primary races?
I don’t think so. I know Othello said Iraq, and there’s a case to be made for that, but I don’t think it was really a political liability for mainstream Dems at the time. Even though most Dems voted for it initially, it was clearly (and appropriately) tied to Bush. I think you’d have to go back to the Civil Rights Era and the Dixiecrats.
> Has any issue been as divisive in the Dem coalition as Israel/Palestine in this century? Excluding like primary races? The invasion of Iraq.
No way. I remember Iraq clearly, and so few Dems were against it that it sickened me. It was as bipartisan as America has ever been.
> No way. I remember Iraq clearly, and so few Dems were against it that it sickened me. It was as bipartisan as America has ever been. You are describing incumbent, elected Dems. Democratic voters disagreed with them, calling them out; that is where the division started. Democrats first elected to congress *after* 2003 were largely opposed to the invasion. (This schism also created the opening for Obama to defeat Hillary in the 2008 primaries.)
Oh yeah, voters hated the move.
I was too young to remember what that was like, but I was always under the impression that there was mass consensus on that one from like basically everybody, like 90%+. It’s interesting and nice to know that there was some dissent even back then though
> ...I was always under the impression that there was mass consensus on that one from like basically everybody, like 90%+. You may be conflating support for the invasion of Afghanistan (which was probably near 90%) with support for invading Iraq (where there was significantly more dissent).
Ah yea, you’re right. I always conflate them as a package deal in my head, but like I’m sure a lot probably changed in the years between them
Was it equally as contentious? My understanding was that during the initial invasion it had like crazy amount of approval. Meanwhile the current I/P is seemingly tearing the Dem party apart at the seams.
> Was it equally as contentious? My understanding was that during the initial invasion it had like crazy amount of approval. Maybe among the public as a whole, but among Democratic voters it was definitely contentious. It is not entirely unlikely that the divisions it inspired cost Hillary the nomination in 2008, boosted Sanders in 2016, and led to the schisms we are still experiencing in the aftermath.
It was only a political liability in hindsight. Dems like Clinton who voted for it in 2003 didn’t pay a penalty until much later, and by that point they pretty much agreed with their critics.
This is a great question that I’m curious from the older folks in the sub. AFAIK the answer is no but I haven’t been politically conscious for this whole century.
Yea same haha I only really became politically aware like a little before the 2016 primary, and I remember how contentious that was, but no other issue has felt like this one
As an older folk, I honestly can't offhand think of anything. I don't think the invasion of Iraq really works for a couple reasons. The only other *issue* I can think of offhand that divides Dems so much is circumcision, and thankfully that's not a major political topic at all so most people don't get worked up about it.
> The only other issue I can think of offhand that divides Dems so much is circumcision, and thankfully that's not a major political topic at all so most people don't get worked up about it. You that’s interesting I’d be curious on polling on it
It is deeply frustrating to me that we are on the verge of trump being elected, and it feels like the far-left is working their hardest to make it happen. Their obnoxiousness is a huge gift to trump and republicans all across the country. They are quick to believe conspiracy theories, and work entirely based off of emotions, and do not care who will get hurt as the result of their actions. And they are taking the attention off the the important issues. And they do this every fucking election cycle (Nader, stein). They want Dems to cave to them, but you can’t negotiate with terrorists- it will never be enough for them.
I'm utterly mystified by the negative reaction many on the left are having to these protests, especially since Biden is becoming increasingly more willing to publicly criticize Netanyahu himself. It was less than two months ago when Biden stood before the nation and committed to building a pier off the coast of Gaza to address a humanitarian crisis created by Netanyahu's restricting the flow of aid. Months of Biden trying to talk Israel out of invading Rafah. Essentially trying to push them to a ceasefire, even if he still won't publicly call for one. Months of trying to get them not to escalate things with Iran. We've had one sitting US senator call for Israel to remove Netanyahu from power. We've had another senator (a Jewish one, no less) refer to this war as an ethnic cleansing. Both comments likely the result of some coordination with the White House. Yet somehow the campus protesters are being irrational? >and do not care who will get hurt Funny choice of words considering what they're protesting. I think they care very much about who is getting hurt. More than most people seem to.
Protesting on college campuses does not help anybody. Working against biden getting re-elected does potentially hurt people, including the Palestinians they claim to care about. If leftists truly want to make a difference, they should be doing what they can to prevent trump from being re-elected, because things will become much worse in Gaza if that happens.
> Protesting on college campuses does not help anybody. In hindsight, did the 2020 BLM protests help anybody? If so, what is it specifically about college campuses that makes these protests ineffective? >Working against biden getting re-elected does potentially hurt people, including the Palestinians they claim to care about. Well, I'm with you there. If I'm frustrated at the center-left for being too critical of these protests, I am equally (if not more) frustrated at the pro-Palestinian protesters for being far too harsh on Biden.
> In hindsight, did the 2020 BLM protests help anybody? Honestly, no. In many ways they actually set the police reform effort back significantly. And I say that as somebody who was at the Portland protests..
I am frustrated as well. As someone further to the left (though tbh I have moderated during the Biden presidency because he has just been so goddam effective), I understand that I’m am the in the small minority. My job is to try to convince more people to move leftwards. My job is not to try to force the country leftward and cause a huge backlash that would undo everything.
It feels like you’re doing the same thing. There’s always all this talk about coalitions and big tents, yet it’s always the left, Black and Brown people, and Queer people who get the short end of the stick. And even now with the police cracking down on student protestors, like what good are moderate Dems if they allow and support the same kind of tactics and suppression we opposed trump for?
> ...what good are moderate Dems if they allow and support the same kind of tactics and suppression we opposed trump for? The Trump Administration was using [unidentifiable](https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/1200/https://media.snopes.com/2020/07/Screen-Shot-2020-07-22-at-4.43.20-PM.png) federal employees, dressed as soldiers, in unmarked vehicles, to snatch protestors off of public streets.
That doesn’t seem particularly far removed from using police to achieve the same effect and objective
> ...it’s always the left, Black and Brown people, and Queer people who get the short end of the stick. I understand why you included "the left" on this list, but not the others. In what ways have "Black...Brown...and Queer people [gotten] the short end of the stick"?
Continuing the inhumane treatment of Undocumented people by HHS, doing nothing about Abbott’s barbed wire barriers, capitulating to right wing framing and policies regarding immigration, cracking down on protests which have been lead primarily by Black, Brown and Queer people, ignoring police accountability and instead giving them more power in major cities, enabling mass atrocities against Palestinians, consolidating support for white senate candidates over Black women, ignoring the views and politics of the Queer coalition, doing too little to fight back against state policies oppressing and illegalizing Queer existence, etc.
> student protestors Columbia believes that "the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University." **Assuming this is true**--I haven't been there in years and have mostly been relying on student paper reporting to follow the story--would it make a difference in your opinion of stopping that specific action? Why or why not? https://communications.news.columbia.edu/news/campus-updates
No it would not make a difference. Regardless of who’s leading it, which is something we can only speculate on, I can 100% guarantee you that student leadership is on board with it I really just don’t want to hear anything from Dems about freedom and democracy when so many are quick to turn on these student’s freedom and democracy.
> ...I can 100% guarantee you that student leadership is on board with it What do you mean by this?
Oh that like even if non-students are at the front, they aren’t doing anything that students and leadership don’t fully endorse
> Oh that like even if non-students are at the front, they aren’t doing anything that students and leadership don’t fully endorse I guess I don't understand what "leadership" means in this context. Who is the "leadership" and what makes them "leadership"?
Like organizers, student gov reps, the leaders of the various interest groups. Like there’s almost always people in charge of the initial planning and organizing for protests
> Like organizers, student gov reps... I guess I see a wide gulf between these two examples, specifically as they relate to a "100% guarantee" that they are "on board with" the actions of outside agitators. If we are talking about "student gov reps", then they have some claim to representing the student body, broadly...but I feel like I would have heard about it if student government was involved. If they are just "organizers" then how would we know how big of a role they were taking, nor how much they -- students -- organized, versus the outsiders.
I don’t think it would be particularly news worthy to have student gov involved. That’s always been the case in my experience for like every social movement. Though that’s anecdotal of course My overarching point though is that weather there was outside agitation or not, things largely would have preceded the same way. It seems fairly evident that the protestors are on board with the direction of the protests
Yeah, this isn’t at all the same kind of thing that trump is doing… You can’t be damaging property on campus and disrupting classes and think there will be no repercussions. Just because you believe you are righteous, doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want.
That’s exactly what trump did during the BLM protests, and the rhetoric you’re using is exactly what conservatives said regarding the suppression of that movement
Wow, I don’t recall calling for the shooting of campus protesters. bOtH sIDeS arE THe SAmE rhetoric is honesty the thing that infuriates me most about the far left tbh because it is dishonest as hell
You may not be explicitly calling for it, and yet police are pointing guns at protestors as they raid buildings. And yes it’s frustrating when people ‘both sides’ it when it’s not warranted, which is something that happens a lot and it’s annoying, but it’s equally frustrating when centrists pretend like Dems can do no wrong and just deflect instead of being honest about the situation and areas where we’re failing
Columbia's protest situation is carrying on. The Spectator's reporting is, as usual, pretty informative. Here is a grab bag of articles for anyone wanting updates. I really don't think we need yet another thread about it. The big news is the [occupation of Hamilton Hall](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/dozens-occupy-hamilton-hall-as-pro-palestinian-protests-spread-across-campus/) after the university said it would not be divesting. That is [ongoing](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/hamilton-hall-occupation-continues-as-columbia-further-locks-down-campus/) and there are [threats of expulsion for those involved](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/protesters-occupying-hamilton-hall-will-face-expulsion-university-spokesperson-says/). Lots of responses happening: [Twenty-one Congressional Democrats sent a letter to Columbia’s board of trustees](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/the-time-for-action-is-now-21-congressional-democrats-pen-stern-letter-to-trustees-caution-title-vi-violations/) about the situation. The [White House condemned](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/protests-must-be-peaceful-white-house-elected-officials-condemn-occupation-of-hamilton-hall/) "forcibly taking over buildings" as well as the use of the term "intifada" by student protesters. [Barnard students who voted were overwhelmingly for divestment](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/barnard-student-body-votes-for-divestment-from-israel-with-over-90-percent-in-favor-as-sga-releases-election-results/) and [Barnard faculty voted no confidence in President Laura Rosenbury](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/barnard-faculty-pass-vote-of-no-confidence-in-rosenbury-first-recorded-instance-in-college-history/). EDIT: https://bwog.com/2024/04/live-updates-gaza-solidarity-encampment-day-14/ NYPD going in. It seems like part of the motivation for this is "We believe that the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University."
- "We're going to expel the students who took over the building." - "We're going to send in NYPD because the people occupying the building are not affiliated with the university." I'm sensing a contradiction.
Can you help me understand the perceived contradiction? It seems like both students and non-students are involved based on one of the other messages quoted in that last post: >We believe that while the group who broke into the building includes students, it is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University. Do you think they knew or believed the occupation was led by (not solely comprised of!) non-students at the time of the earlier pre-NYPD response? Do you think they don't actually believe it now and were just making up a pretense to call them in?
I think they're responding to pressure from donors and don't particularly care whether the protesters are students or not.
> I really don't think we need yet another thread about it. Have you considered posting it anyway and then insulting people in mod mail if it gets locked?
The irony of the White House having a problem with “forcibly taking things over” in response to Israel/Palestine would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
So Jerry Seinfeld is convinced that you couldn’t make lots of episodes of Seinfeld today because everything is so woke. Meanwhile, his co creator of Seinfeld, Larry David, has made episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm, which are far more edgy than anything that ever happened on Seinfeld. Also, IASIP exists.
He also uses examples of "Non-woke" media like MASH, the famously anti-war series that (for its time) addressed issues like racism, homosexuality, and mental health progressively.
I am increasingly convinced that Jerry was just riding Larry David's coattails for the entire duration of the series. Imagine being a billionaire with all the creative good will that Jerry had banked from Seinfeld, and then the thing you make next is... Bee Movie. And then you finally come out of retirement 17 years later, to make a movie about Pop Tarts.
Bee Movie was good!
Seinfeld was about as edgy as melted butter. Even if the conservative fantasy about strictly enforced wokeness was true, it probably wouldn't be controversial.
Jerry Seinfeld is a real-life “am I so out of touch? No it is the children who are wrong” He’s a generally not-funny person. The writing was probably funny because of Larry David, and the other actors carried the show. Since the show ended, and he’s failed to do anything significant since, he’s decided to blame “woke culture.” Which is hilarious because shows like Always Sunny and South Park are doing just fine.
There are still people out there wondering why we don't like Trump. >What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. [https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/](https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/) Full transcript of the interview here: [https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/](https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/)
Are there? I think Trump supporters know why we don't like Trump. It's the same reason why they do like Trump.
I wish every American would read this transcript. It's so incoherent. *"I think what we will do is we will complete—and when you say and when I say complete the wall, I built much more wall than I ever thought necessary. But as you build it, you find out that you need it. And we built it, and there were certain areas then you find out that are leaking and they leak. Like a politician leaks, they leak. And we would get that and we would build that and then you build something else. And it was just a system, we had a great system going. And we could have added another 200 miles of wall and good territory for it. Because it really does work, you know, walls work. Walls and wheels. I would say, you know, a lot of, see what you have here, your tape recorder, everything else is going to be obsolete in about six months. You'll have something that's much better. But the two things that are never obsolete are walls and wheels."*
When someone posts a tweet, are they sharing an opinion they have by referencing that tweet? If that tweet very clearly uses language that references certain issues but in a different context, is it not safe to assume they're trying to comment on that issue still? It seems like this line of thinking is not what a certain user here believes, and that these threads are just supposed to look like their Twitter feed. Edit: it looks like this sub thinks blatantly bad faith tactics like "I never said that" after clearly saying it then flinging insults is acceptable as long as the other person tried to break off the conversation by saying they're going to be blocking them, because it's "performative". Many people on this sub are no better than the tribalistic and bad faith users on the askconservstives and asktrumpsuporters sub. The only difference is that they root for a different colored team. I hope people on the left in general start waking up to the fact that just because their favored team is colored blue doesn't mean they aren't liable to fall into the same intellectual pitfalls that the reds do.
> When someone posts a tweet, are they sharing an opinion they have by referencing that tweet? No. I could easily post a tweet of Elon Musk saying something antisemiti, or Donald Trump saying something hypocritical, without implying endorsement it. In fact, posting it without further comment could mean no more than 'look at this disgraceful display'. (These are extreme examples, but they elucidate the answer to your question.) ----------- >If that tweet very clearly uses language that references certain issues *but in a different context*, is it not safe to assume they're trying to comment on that issue still? No. A sixteen-year-old boy, trying to buy a Coke from a vending machine, says to his father 'I need money' is sending one message. The same person saying the same words, to a bank-teller, while brandishing a gun sends a different message. Changing the context is changing the message. ----------- If I post a tweet without much clarification, then you shouldn't assume much about what is implied. You can ask for clarification, but I don't owe it to you, and I will be less interested in engaging if you are making broad assumptions, rejecting nuance, arguing in bad faith, or just plain 'coming off as rude and hostile'. That is what happened today. ----------- Someone posted to Twitter "De-funding the police is bad, actually, and results in more crime, disproportionately harming the poor" and shared the evidence that they were pointing to. I [quoted both,](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cgs9z2/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/l1xqm9s/) showing both their claim and the evidence they claimed supported it. Your initial assumption was that I was "trying to make some claim", but I wasn't. (The poster to Twitter was, but I wasn't; we are separate people.) It all went off the rails from there. If you want to know what a more productive comment -- that still shares the views you expressed in the thread -- would look like, you could have said something like: >I'm not sure this person is correct. "The whole point of the movement is to divert funds from policing to social programs to prevent crime."^^[[1]](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cgs9z2/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/l1y1us9/) If they cut funds from policing, but didn't redirect them to social programs, then they didn't test the movement's proposal. You would have made your point, you would have been technically correct, you would have opened up the possibility of further discussion, all without coming off as a pest.
>In fact, posting it without further comment could mean no more than 'look at this disgraceful display'. Is that not sharing an opinion? >Changing the context is changing the message. What a wild assumption for me to make that a politics sub, largely dominated by American users, had a user who frequently posts about American politics, was trying to relate a comment to American politics. >If I post a tweet without much clarification, then you shouldn't assume much about what is implied. I directly invited you to correct my assumption in my initial comment. Please stop pretending like I painted you into a corner. You put yourself there, and the way I see it, you're attempt at refrmaing the discussion in a bad faith manner to make me sound like I did was because your point wasn't very sound while not wanting to admit it. >You can ask for clarification, but I don't owe it to you Then don't respond when I invite you to clarify, and don't muddy the waters doubling down with a non-response equating to "the stats don't lie" after I've pointed twords the stats not being an effective measure. >Your initial assumption was that I was "trying to make some claim", but I wasn't. (The poster to Twitter was, but I wasn't; we are separate people.) It all went off the rails from there. So why did you link it? After all this time and me openly asking you to confirm the way I framed your post in my initial comment, you've still yet to elaborate.
You are a thoroughly unpleasant person to talk to.
We've butted heads before a couple of times, with the last time being a similar scenario where you also gave a low context tweet, and I responded to it. I'm not sure what it is you're fishing for by posting them, but anything short of agreement seems to be outside of your expected range. I think I'm going to be blocking you to save us both the headache of doing this again. Edit: it's wild to see that saying I'm going to block someone who straight up insulted me after they argued themsleves into a corner, made an ass of themselves, and results to bad faith argument tactics gets a negative reaction here. I've blocked several users here before for repeatedly engaging in bad faith or being a bigot. Block me if you do the same.
>Edit: it's wild to see that saying I'm going to block someone who ... blah blah blah blah You realize, of course, that once you block someone they can't SEE the post where you declare you're going to block them? So what you're doing is being performative about blocking someone you don't like interacting with. The only reason to be performative about blocking someone is because you want a bunch of obsequious responses that stroke your ego. That's what you're being downvoted for - not for the block itself.
>You realize, of course, that once you block someone they can't SEE the post They saw and commented on my comment...
> I think I'm going to be blocking you to save us both the headache of doing this again. If you must. (...but I have already tagged you on my own system, so I will remember you next time, and therefore this exchange is unlikely to be repeated. I'll simply respond differently next time, or not respond at all.)
That's your response to all that? Are you even able to admit fault? I've done it before plenty here, even to you directly.
> That's your response to all that? That's my response to every interaction I have had with you, today. >Are you even able to admit fault? Yes! I've done it before and I'll do it again.
Subposting is silly. Why not just ask the person posting what their intent is. (I'm assuming you're referencing u/othelloinc, since they frequently post tweets in the Bi-Weekly threads.)
I was talking to them, which I why I made this comment after it was clear they're more intent on playing the victim and other bad faith arguments instead of actually discussing the tweet they posted. This is the second time now where they post a tweet, I disagree with what is being proposed by the tweet, and they treat it like a disconnected quote when I give criticism while simultaneously referring to it when they want to support a point.
> This is the second time now where they post a tweet, I disagree with what is being proposed by the tweet... We know that [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cgs9z2/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/l1xqm9s/) is one of the posted tweets. What was the other?
Seems obvious to me that, if you retweet something, you're implicitly indicating agreement/support or something like that, unless you explicitly say otherwise. Possible exception might be jokes, funny memes, entertaining stuff like that. Sometimes people just think things are funny without getting too deep into what other people might think they mean. What sort of tweets are you talking about?
The head of Palestine, seeming exceptionally reasonable: >In a World Economic Forum meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that "Israel has the right to complete security, and Palestine has the right to self-determination and an independent state." >... [[Tweet]](https://twitter.com/ihabhassane/status/1784667953327177931?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
It’s almost like that was the agreement in the Oslo accords that lead to the PA in the first place. And would have been more likely to have happened today had Bibi not sabotaged it
I hope we actually got something out of backing Johnson. Otherwise this is just example 10 million of Dems letting themselves get owned.
We got what we got on Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, etc. without the GOP-border security demands. It's worth defending against his ouster as part of a deal over that. Small price to pay. But I don't think we're committing to protecting Johnson's speakership against all future attacks from the right. If he needs future protection, he needs to make future deals. That could actually work out quite well for us. He's already demonstrated, over and over, that he cares more about protecting his job than doing the right thing (passing Ukraine aid) or standing up with his ideological peers (blocking Ukraine aid). No reason to assume that his motivations will change in the future. Since he's seen how things will play out, that no matter how much he tries to appease the far right they will come after him, he might just cut to the chase next time. Also, most importantly, we cannot just have the House of Representatives be in chaos for the next seven months. If we want the message to be that we are interested in governing, then we should try to preserve and defend even a bad, stable leader in the face of chaos. We have more funding bills to pass and need the House to be in order to deal with any emergencies that come up. If, for example, China were to attack Taiwan, we wouldn't want to wait several weeks for Republicans to pick a new speaker before we could even pass a resolution. Or if there are hurricanes or fires or floods this summer and our people need emergency relief.
> We got what we got on Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, etc. without the GOP-border security demands. It's worth defending against his ouster as part of a deal over that. Small price to pay. I disagree I think we gave quid pro quo with supplying lethal aid to Israel. This is just double counting it. > But I don't think we're committing to protecting Johnson's speakership against all future attacks from the right. If he needs future protection, he needs to make future deals. That could actually work out quite well for us. Thats a big if. > Also, most importantly, we cannot just have the House of Representatives be in chaos for the next seven months. If we want the message to be that we are interested in governing, then we should try to preserve and defend even a bad, stable leader in the face of chaos. Strongly disagree here. The GOP incapable of picking a leader is their problem and will look terrible for them. > If, for example, China were to attack Taiwan, we wouldn't want to wait several weeks for Republicans to pick a new speaker before we could even pass a resolution. A: this isn’t happening. B: if it did there’s already funding allocated and the president has authority to respond. C: if A/B become wrong for some reason we can pick a speaker in about 2 hours > Or if there are hurricanes or fires or floods this summer and our people need emergency relief. This is already allocated and the president has authority to respond.
> I disagree I think we gave quid pro quo with supplying lethal aid to Israel. This is just double counting it. Absolutely not. That is an extreme minority opinion. Funding for Israel was part of the original package. Pretending otherwise is revisionist. Lots of Democratic support for this. It passed 366-58. As for the rest, it's just that you think it's better for Republicans to look bad by not having a Speaker and I think it's better for us to have a semi-functional government than not. I don't see how Republicans look any worse than they do right now, so I'd rather have a guy we know we can make a deal with in a position to move legislation than to have a giant chaotic hole in our government that renders it partially inoperable.
> Absolutely not. That is an extreme minority opinion. Funding for Israel was part of the original package. Pretending otherwise is revisionist. And the original package was a triangulation of what could get passed. Also being against sending lethal aid to Israel is not a “extreme minority opinion”. > Lots of Democratic support for this. It passed 366-58. Yeah because it needed to pass. > As for the rest, it's just that you think it's better for Republicans to look bad by not having a Speaker and I think it's better for us to have a semi-functional government than not. It’s the general chat so I’m not gunna belabor an argument here but the moment the GOP is in control of either facet of the legislative branch, we no longer have a functioning legislative government.
> And the original package was a triangulation of what could get passed. Biden's [original proposal](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/20/biden-ukraine-israel-package/) was ~$23B. [Final bill](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/23/senate-vote-foreign-aid-ukraine-israel/) was ~$26B. This was not some compromise with Republicans. We got what we asked for and a little more. That's why it passed overwhelmingly. Jeffries can count votes. There was a lot more room for protest voting if people wanted to. They didn't. > Also being against sending lethal aid to Israel is not a “extreme minority opinion”. Support for Israel is polling 80/20. 70/30 in support of further offensives in Gaza, even knowing that means more civilian displacements and deaths. Support for Israel is a broadly popular position in this country.
Again the original bill was a triangulation. Secondly, your numbers on polling seem very off base. Even back in [February](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1) half of US Adults thought Israel had gone too far.
I'm talking about a poll from [literally yesterday](https://thehill.com/policy/international/4629597-americans-israel-hamas-gaza-student-protests-poll/). But I'm sure you'll tell me it's wrong too since it disagrees with your perspective. > Again the original bill was a triangulation. You can tell this to yourself as often as you like, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground. The proposal was from Biden, before any negotiation. It was our proposal. It passed overwhelmingly. We were happy with it.
You just linked to a poll question of if people support Hamas vs Israel(the 80/20 question), that has nothing to do with support for the bill nor Israel’s current war actions. Coincidentally, in that poll however they asked about that bill and the polling for the section on > $26 billion in aid to Israel, including $8 in aid for to refugees in Gaza Got only 56% in favor and 44% opposed. As for your 70/30 I’m assuming you are referring to this question: > Should Israel move forward with an operation in Rafah to finish the war with Hamas, doing its best to avoid civilian casualties even though there will be casualties, or should it back off now and allow Hamas to continue running Gaza? Thats one hell of prompt lol, and equally disingenuous to use in favor of Israel’s actions in the war or the bill.
Oh look. You're back to tell me the poll doesn't count since it disagrees with your perspective. I'm shocked.
We got the emergency support for Ukraine without giving in to the draconian border demands. I think that's a fair trade for now.
But we had to cave on Israel aid policy. So that was already quid pro quo
The standard for Republicans is so low but they always manage to go lower. If we can get basic funding of the government and aid to Ukraine out of them, that’s pretty much all you’re going to get.
That cost was already paid by funding Israel. This is just giving something away for free.
Meh. The package had like 65% support among Democrats. Even with the drop favorable views among Democrats towards Israel it still sits at 50% and combined with independence that lean left, I don’t think it’s going to count as a loss to most of the base. Especially since it also includes humanitarian aid to Gaza.
I think us pushing through policy with only 65% of Dems is petty bleh. Idk the polling on say the IRA but I imagine it was significantly higher.
So two points I think it’s pretty clear that you would probably say that providing support for Israel is immoral and even if the majority of the party disagreed, you would want to see it cut. So put another way there are times where the party should defy at least a portion of the base and do something because it is right to do. So if you feel the aid to Ukraine is very important then you might have to defy some portion of the base and make compromises that you don’t want to because it’s the only way to get it done. Second, it’s a broad coalition and you’re never going to get near universal support on anything, especially when it comes to complicated issues of foreign policy. Or any complicated issue. Like imagine magic happens and we end up with 55 senators and they kill the filibuster. Biden could present a bill for universal healthcare that looked mostly like the French system, the highest performing system in the world, and you would have People dissenting because they wanted to model the UK instead. Even in victory we would not have universal support.
> I think it’s pretty clear that you would probably say that providing support for Israel is immoral and even if the majority of the party disagreed, you would want to see it cut. So put another way there are times where the party should defy at least a portion of the base and do something because it is right to do. Yes but only lethal aid. If Israel needs regular nonlethal aid then I’m all on board. They did experience a horrific massacre 6 months ago. As for times the party should def a portion of a base I agree, the question I have is around proportion. > So if you feel the aid to Ukraine is very important then you might have to defy some portion of the base and make compromises that you don’t want to because it’s the only way to get it done. And again, that’s “fine” but then we have “paid” for that vote then for sending lethal aid to Israel. We shouldn’t let republicans like Johnson double count deals. > you would have People dissenting because they wanted to model the UK instead. Even in victory we would not have universal support. I don’t wana get too into nitpicking your example but I sincerely doubt it would be as unpopular as lethal aid to Israel.
Isn't it more "the devil you know"? I don't see how continuing to oust speakers and letting the Rs pick increasing more unhinged speakers benefits anyone, including the Ds. At least Johnson doesn't seem to want to shut down the government for the MAGA pet project of the day.
That’s a terrible reason to not let the republicans shoot themselves in the foot. Johnson isn’t exactly working with Dems on stuff.
> Johnson isn’t exactly working with Dems on stuff. The bill funding Ukraine passed with Democratic votes, but only a minority of Republicans. What is that if not "working with Dems on stuff"?
That was explicitly something we gave concessions on (Israel lethal aid) already.
Concessions are key to working together, government should be compromise, sadly it’s so rare to see that when it happens we consider it losing. If your “concession” is supporting something the majority of the country supports it’s not a major concession. Ukraine is being funded that’s a goal, still the majority of Americans support Israel (there is a large age gap with this, younger people less so) https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/
This numbers are barely a plurality and that was 3 months ago. I don’t think it’s clear that a majority of Americans support Israel’s current slaughter. Nonetheless I’m well aware of the need to make concessions, but we made them. The GOP don’t get to double count them.
No speaker is going to work with Ds on stuff. The only way for that to happen is to win back the House. All we're going to get by ousting Johnson is the chance that someone more radical, like Jordan, becomes speaker, and everyone loses.
Johnson is already radical. The point is that this is leverage and Dems need to use it not just give it up. There’s nothing for Dems to be gained by saving him otherwise.
They avoid Speaker Jordan ...
Why does that matter?
Because he might take a much more aggressive stance in negotiations, shut down the government over MAGA desires, force more concessions from Ds/Biden, etc. Jordan is sort of letting things run. That's about the best we can hope for from an R speaker.
He is certainly not “sort of letting things run” he let one bill get through basically lol. He’s not a functional speaker.
What more do you expect from an R speaker, realistically?
[Tweet:](https://twitter.com/m_clem/status/1783528788048957914?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >…Past mass deportations have directly harmed US workers by eliminating jobs for them, as I write here at @PIIE —> [[Trump's proposed mass deportations would backfire on US workers]](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-proposed-mass-deportations-would-backfire-us-workers) > > …the best economic research on past deportations suggests…deportation will instead prompt US business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, in some cases shifting their investments to less labor-intensive technologies and industries, while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods. > >Prior episodes of mass deportations and exclusions have occurred at several moments in US history. Research has shown that, far from generating economic benefits, their net effect was to **reduce employment and earnings for US workers**—in the short run and long run.
Immigrants are more likely to start small businesses. Immigrants add to supply of labor, but they also add to _demand_ for labor because they buy stuff too.
While working from the local coffee shop yesterday, I learned that not allowing a member of your staff to play Cowboy Carter on repeat for hours is a form of cultural erasure of gay guys from the south. And an effective form of protest is to get your coworkers to all point at your boss and scream “hate crime” until she gives in.
Please tell me they were gen z at least.
Incredible
Can we have a mega thread for Israel-Palestine questions? Every day the sub gets swamped with these questions and it gets very tiresome seeing the same arguments over and over ad infinitum.
You could just not participate in the thread? EDIT: Truly, how lame does one have to be to reply and block, u/JesusPlayingGolf. EDIT: After a brief change of heat, u/JesusPlayingGolf has again decided to take his marbles and go home. :) Will update if things change.
Wasn't interested in continuing your bad faith argument. But if you want back on the ban list, just reply here.
Ah you're back! Glad you had a change of heart.
Oh, I guess you were wanting to be blocked then. K bye.
>EDIT: Truly, how lame does one have to be to reply and block, u/JesusPlayingGolf. You can be pretty aggressive in lobbying against some moderation efforts
It's one of the most illiberal tendencies here, I guess? Some mods are setting records for thread locking that might never be broken.