Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Discendo Vox posted:

"Expressing frustration" is just your insistence that nothing is possible so discussion is meaningless. It contains nothing to discuss and demands, by language games Main Paineframe and others have already explained, that participants stop the discussion of specifics and accept their denial. This isn't new. You know that specific policies, and laws, and regulations, and courts, and elections exist. Others should not have to reestablish the existence of reality from first principles in order to have a discussion every time you want to demand that anything other than "death" is futile.

I mean is there a legislative solution on a federal level that is feasible at the moment? If your argument is "no the death to America chat is a derail" and then when asked about "well what would you prefer to discuss that this counts as a detail" dive fully into "your saying discussion is meaningless". It seems a little odd, that's all.

I even asked about what solutions you would have/want to propose. It's not asking for like an in depth policy proposal, but it'd be nice to hear what you think would be an effective solution!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Josef bugman posted:

I mean is there a legislative solution on a federal level that is feasible at the moment? If your argument is "no the death to America chat is a derail" and then when asked about "well what would you prefer to discuss that this counts as a detail" dive fully into "your saying discussion is meaningless". It seems a little odd, that's all.

I even asked about what solutions you would have/want to propose. It's not asking for like an in depth policy proposal, but it'd be nice to hear what you think would be an effective solution!

I'm not sure what "federal legislative solution" and "death to America" have to do with each other, other than the fact that they're both incredibly vague phrases that can apparently be interpreted in all sorts of different ways.

I'll say this much: for half a century, there was no "legislative solution on a federal level" for banning abortion, but anti-abortionists kept working at it anyway, and now look at all the progress they're making.

The effective solution is "keep fighting to build political support". There's no substitute.

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Main Paineframe posted:

I'm not sure what "federal legislative solution" and "death to America" have to do with each other, other than the fact that they're both incredibly vague phrases that can apparently be interpreted in all sorts of different ways.

I'll say this much: for half a century, there was no "legislative solution on a federal level" for banning abortion, but anti-abortionists kept working at it anyway, and now look at all the progress they're making.

The effective solution is "keep fighting to build political support". There's no substitute.

It's that, the original DTA discussion was provoked by something that has no apparent legislative solution, leading to a discussion on DTA instead of the prior thing which I see as a legitimate area for discussion.

It also helped that there were still a lot of individually wealthy and politically powerful contributors to the Anti-abortion movement. And even then it isn't working all that well.

oscarthewilde
May 16, 2012


I would often go there
To the tiny church there

Main Paineframe posted:

I'm not sure what "federal legislative solution" and "death to America" have to do with each other, other than the fact that they're both incredibly vague phrases that can apparently be interpreted in all sorts of different ways.

I'll say this much: for half a century, there was no "legislative solution on a federal level" for banning abortion, but anti-abortionists kept working at it anyway, and now look at all the progress they're making.

The effective solution is "keep fighting to build political support". There's no substitute.

to be completely fair, there was never a legislative solution for banning abortion, nor was there even a legislative solution for legalizing it. the legal status of abortion in the US has never been as thorough as it should have been, and the anti-abortionists realized that forming a hard-right majority on the supreme court - a fact relatively easily realised without majority legislative support - could get them what they wanted. even if the democrats controlled both houses of congress, and even if there they had the political will and desire to push through federal anti-gun legislation in a combative, unipartisan manner, any law would still bump against a rabidly right-wing supreme court. of course political and grass roots support are important, but that might not be enough

Staluigi
Jun 22, 2021

thermodynamics cheated

Main Paineframe posted:

The effective solution is "keep fighting to build political support". There's no substitute.

Have you considered the violent revolution which i will definitely be the vanguard of, and which is definitely coming

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




BUUNNI posted:

I donít think black or indigenous people can pull anything useful from Americaís national myth of origin but if you really want to try it then go ahead.

They have their own myths of origin, their own stories about where they are that describe the material places in society from which they support themselves.

We can find things in common with people who have different stories / myths than we do in order to point in the same direction towards expectation. Expectation here being the idea that in the future this can be a better world, that we can do something about our immoral society. The point here being it doesnít matter if we use different words for expectation (eg socialism, the Kingdom of God, the shining city on the hill, etc) what matters is that we realize that even in difference we can point the same way to frame and shape a fight against power with action.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




Discendo Vox posted:

"Death to america" is the opposite of any kind of discussion- it's a deliberately obtuse , uselessly overbroad slogan that obfuscates and denies any possible specific action. It's an ultimatum that has the effect of dismissing all other discussion, which is what it has done.

If my response below is a conversation that you want pick up when you get back Iíd be happy to. But the thing you need to see in what they are asserting is that our society is immoral is true. When you blow them off you blow that off and itís a truth. Our society is very often and undeniably immoral. Now itís not true that itís unique to us in anyway. Itís universal that societies are immoral. So their following points (that it should end and the world would be better if it did) are not true and are frankly naive and ahistorical. But if you blow them off right at the beginning the dialogue can never get to there.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Josef bugman posted:

It's that, the original DTA discussion was provoked by something that has no apparent legislative solution, leading to a discussion on DTA instead of the prior thing which I see as a legitimate area for discussion.

It also helped that there were still a lot of individually wealthy and politically powerful contributors to the Anti-abortion movement. And even then it isn't working all that well.

There's no such thing as "no apparent legislative solution". The only thing that gets even close to that is Constitutional or judicial obstacles, and as the anti-abortion movement showed, even those obstacles can be shifted out of the way if you build enough public support.

oscarthewilde posted:

to be completely fair, there was never a legislative solution for banning abortion, nor was there even a legislative solution for legalizing it. the legal status of abortion in the US has never been as thorough as it should have been, and the anti-abortionists realized that forming a hard-right majority on the supreme court - a fact relatively easily realised without majority legislative support - could get them what they wanted. even if the democrats controlled both houses of congress, and even if there they had the political will and desire to push through federal anti-gun legislation in a combative, unipartisan manner, any law would still bump against a rabidly right-wing supreme court. of course political and grass roots support are important, but that might not be enough

"Get more Supreme Court justices who agree with you" is ultimately a legislative solution. The anti-abortion movement got that right-wing Supreme Court by holding the Senate when a seat opened up and refusing to permit the appointment of non-right-wing candidates. They even held it open through an election, where the electorate backed their decision by not only allowing the GOP to keep their Senate majority but also giving them a right-wing president who'd appoint right-wing anti-abortion candidates.

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Main Paineframe posted:

There's no such thing as "no apparent legislative solution". The only thing that gets even close to that is Constitutional or judicial obstacles, and as the anti-abortion movement showed, even those obstacles can be shifted out of the way if you build enough public support.

Do you think that the US legislature would be able to vote itself out of existence, in anything other than the most hypothetical situation? It's not impossible in the way that something falling upwards is impossible, but in a practicable way it is.

Bar Ran Dun posted:

If my response below is a conversation that you want pick up when you get back Iíd be happy to. But the thing you need to see in what they are asserting is that our society is immoral is true. When you blow them off you blow that off and itís a truth. Our society is very often and undeniably immoral. Now itís not true that itís unique to us in anyway. Itís universal that societies are immoral. So their following points (that it should end and the world would be better if it did) are not true and are frankly naive and ahistorical. But if you blow them off right at the beginning the dialogue can never get to there.

I do understand the point of view that this involves, but to go back to your prior point I don't think k everyone's myths of origin can be reconciled with each other.

Grouchio
Aug 31, 2014

Any thoughts on the Heritage Foundation's MAGA takeover bullshit?

Killer robot
Sep 6, 2010

I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!
Pillbug

oscarthewilde posted:

to be completely fair, there was never a legislative solution for banning abortion, nor was there even a legislative solution for legalizing it. the legal status of abortion in the US has never been as thorough as it should have been, and the anti-abortionists realized that forming a hard-right majority on the supreme court - a fact relatively easily realised without majority legislative support - could get them what they wanted. even if the democrats controlled both houses of congress, and even if there they had the political will and desire to push through federal anti-gun legislation in a combative, unipartisan manner, any law would still bump against a rabidly right-wing supreme court. of course political and grass roots support are important, but that might not be enough

Almost every part of that is wrong though. There were decades of enacting abortion restrictions in state and federal legislature then testing them in the courts, and the current makeup of the courts is the direct result of fierce and extended determination by anti-abortionists to control not just the White House, but the Senate as well. Once they got that, actually maintaining abortion bans in the states was also because they work hard to keep legislatures packed with anti-abortionists. Anti-abortionists have been amazingly focused on winning the vote and as a result they have become heavily over represented at all levels of government.

Unfortunately one way or the other, pro gun people similarly have that kind of will (partly due to a lot of overlap of the same people) but there it's even harder since they feel personally impacted by gun restriction in a way that they don't really by other women getting abortions.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




Josef bugman posted:

I do understand the point of view that this involves, but to go back to your prior point I don't think k everyone's myths of origin can be reconciled with each other.

They donít need to be. A synthesis is unnecessary. Correlation isnít a synthesis. Correlation is letís all go in the same direction, but we donít have to be the same!

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Josef bugman posted:

Do you think that the US legislature would be able to vote itself out of existence, in anything other than the most hypothetical situation? It's not impossible in the way that something falling upwards is impossible, but in a practicable way it is.

Sure they can. It might take more than a simple majority vote, and it might require holding that majority for a prolonged time period, but if there's strong, long-lasting public support for the legislature abolishing itself, then no amount of legalese is going going to get in the way.

Ultimately, the Senate is the final arbiter of who makes it onto the Supreme Court, which in turn is the final* arbiter of is or isn't allowed.

*In practice, public opinion is always the final check on the power of all three branches of government. The Supreme Court making bold pronouncements that go well beyond what public opinion is willing to support can backfire pretty badly, as the Taney Court found out in the aftermath of Dred Scott.

Mid-Life Crisis
Jun 13, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

Accelerationism at its finest

Nervous
Jan 25, 2005

Why, hello, my little slice of pecan pie.

I'm extremely saddened by the headline I read after confirming the link hadn't sent me to an Onion article.

Skex
Feb 22, 2012

I think that it bears remembering that these are the same people who successfully stacked the court to overturn Roe and the majority of the VRA.

I'd suggest taking them at their word in this case.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




Skex posted:

I'd suggest taking them at their word in this case.

Yeah this is it, they are telling us explicitly the post election fascist agenda. If they win, theyíll try to do all this, and will likely accomplish it if they win as they clearly intend to abandon democracy.

PhazonLink
Jul 17, 2010
project 2025 is scary, but both your Roe and VRA examples were decades long projects from ancient elder GOP establishment types. todays regressive have a ton of braindrain. and other short term attention span issues. like yeah a R win is like really bad, even if that prez is somehow not Donnie or not Ron.

also maybe the a way to deal with project 2025 is for some people to consider local community good meaning working in the local gov?

Name Change
Oct 9, 2005


I think recruiting rubes off the street speaks to the "planning" and "complexity" of the "shadow government." About the same thing happened last time. They will have learned what the early hurdles are to canceling elections in 2028, but the brain drain as mentioned is quite evident.

If it gets bad with Trump back in power, anyone with sense will be reliant on stuff like Tuberville holds and the state of California effectively blocking fascist projects.

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

it seems like a straightforward continuation of their previous practice of writing up model legislation to dismantle corporate regulation and undermine labor unionization.

ation.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




Cease to Hope posted:

it seems like a straightforward continuation of their previous practice of writing up model legislation to dismantle corporate regulation and undermine labor unionization.

ation.

Schedule F.

Theyíre gunna purge the government this time. They started to at the end last time, but they started too late (the order was Oct 2020) and didnít manage reschedule anybody by Jan 2021.

It will not be a straight forward continuation. Theyíre explicitly telling you what theyíre going to do. Theyíre explicitly telling you theyíre going to be turning the Justice department at folks that oppose them. Theyíve already shown where they intend to go with using CBP as police, I mean they were rather literally black bagging folks in Portland .

Theyíre fascists and they will be fascists. There wonít be three years of old conservatives getting in the way this time.

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Schedule F.

Theyíre gunna purge the government this time. They started to at the end last time, but they started too late (the order was Oct 2020) and didnít manage reschedule anybody by Jan 2021.

It will not be a straight forward continuation.

you mistook my meaning, but it was because i did not make it clear.

it is entirely believable and should be taken seriously (and literally, etc.) because it is a straightforward continuation. purging the regulatory state has always been one of the main goals of the heritage foundation and the american conservative movement in general. schedule F is model legislation in every sense but the most obnoxiously literal. the main difference is that trump and the trump-lite presidential candidates want to make it a big flashy sudden purge rather than the "starve it until it's weak enough to drown in a bathtub" approach of reagan, gingrich, etc. i don't know if that would be more damaging or less than the erosive approach of previous republicans but i'm also not dying to find out.

Tnega
Oct 26, 2010

Pillbug

Josef bugman posted:

Do you think that the US legislature would be able to vote itself out of existence, in anything other than the most hypothetical situation? It's not impossible in the way that something falling upwards is impossible, but in a practicable way it is.

Everything is hypothetical until it happens, fortunately we do have historical precedent for "the legislature voting itself out of existence": the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. A far more likely scenario is a third party gets enough electoral college votes to force the House of Representatives to pick the President, so while I can agree that it is mostly a thought experiment, I do not agree it is only hypothetical.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Killer robot posted:

Almost every part of that is wrong though. There were decades of enacting abortion restrictions in state and federal legislature then testing them in the courts, and the current makeup of the courts is the direct result of fierce and extended determination by anti-abortionists to control not just the White House, but the Senate as well. Once they got that, actually maintaining abortion bans in the states was also because they work hard to keep legislatures packed with anti-abortionists. Anti-abortionists have been amazingly focused on winning the vote and as a result they have become heavily over represented at all levels of government.

Unfortunately one way or the other, pro gun people similarly have that kind of will (partly due to a lot of overlap of the same people) but there it's even harder since they feel personally impacted by gun restriction in a way that they don't really by other women getting abortions.

The gun movement is actually the weakest it's been in decades; NRA's in a slow process of collapse and public opinion has turned pretty heavily on the issue. If the House weren't completely busted right now, it'd be a pretty effective wedge issue going into 2024. The illusion of futility is part of the rhetorical playbook that the group uses to push against advocacy on the topic.

Bar Ran Dun posted:

If my response below is a conversation that you want pick up when you get back Iíd be happy to. But the thing you need to see in what they are asserting is that our society is immoral is true. When you blow them off you blow that off and itís a truth. Our society is very often and undeniably immoral. Now itís not true that itís unique to us in anyway. Itís universal that societies are immoral. So their following points (that it should end and the world would be better if it did) are not true and are frankly naive and ahistorical. But if you blow them off right at the beginning the dialogue can never get to there.

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times. The naive ahistoricism of the position is the point- it's an argument designed to sabotage other discussion. By insisting that we re-entertain and re-explain the most basic principles of ethics and government, the user can repeatedly change the scope and specific subject and continue to assert control of the conversation, demanding a shifting series of explanations and caveats.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




I think understanding it as continuation is dangerous. Itís a fascist party now. I think there will be a qualitative difference in behavior.

Ms Adequate
Oct 29, 2011

Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling



I can't believe how much bandwidth was expended fighting about "Death to America" when all it really is is an ironic way to express annoyance at things as mundane as running into too many red lights on your drive to work. It's the Middle Eastern version of saying "Thanks, Obama."

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006




Discendo Vox posted:

it's obvious, trivial,

Iíve gotta sleep. But what if itís not, (I mean itís also obvious to me.)

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

Bar Ran Dun posted:

I think understanding it as continuation is dangerous. Itís a fascist party now. I think there will be a qualitative difference in behavior.

i think you might be catastrophizing things but i dunno for sure. politicians promising and planning to do something is not the same as actually doing it, and campaigning is pretty much always more ardent than actually governing. wanting isn't having in politics, as i'm sure any observer of american politics knows, even if sometimes it feels like democrats are forever the political equivalent of the washington generals.

all that said, trump quite effectively nuked and paved the judiciary with the coordination of the federalist society and i think that's a big part of why republicans all eventually fell in line. it's more believable that conservatives who have qualms about centralizing power would line up behind a plan like Schedule F, to do something conservatives have wanted to happen for decades. you called the difference qualitative. i disagree: it's quantitative, grabbing the whole pie all at once. that is fascist, to my mind. mainstream conservatives deciding they can work with the far right to get what they want has a pretty bad history and you're right to invoke it i think.

what i am sure about is that republicans running on loving up the regulatory state is that it is a continuation of one of the most effective ways they've been making day-to-day life worse for decades. every big watershed republican success has been built on a pile of incremental regulatory and judicial changes that had already built that success in a de facto way for much of the country. even if you read the "decisive" action as hot air and find Trumpstaffeln to be far-fetched, the fact remains that even a failed attempt to grab the whole pie that only gets a handful still leaves a huge mess. the most cool-headed take is that republicans have a plan to run the federal government like florida and that's pretty bad news!

Mid-Life Crisis
Jun 13, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Schedule F.

Theyíre gunna purge the government this time. They started to at the end last time, but they started too late (the order was Oct 2020) and didnít manage reschedule anybody by Jan 2021.

It will not be a straight forward continuation. Theyíre explicitly telling you what theyíre going to do. Theyíre explicitly telling you theyíre going to be turning the Justice department at folks that oppose them. Theyíve already shown where they intend to go with using CBP as police, I mean they were rather literally black bagging folks in Portland .

Theyíre fascists and they will be fascists. There wonít be three years of old conservatives getting in the way this time.

They started late last time because they didnít think the establishment would so overtly fight change. Instead they went on witch hunt after witch hunt. Mueller. Mueller. Mueller.

You can call them fascists, but theyíre essentially fighting against the same.

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

They started late last time because they didnít think the establishment would so overtly fight change. Instead they went on witch hunt after witch hunt. Mueller. Mueller. Mueller.

You can call them fascists, but theyíre essentially fighting against the same.

They're fascists fighting capitalists who have been using fascism as political and social control.

Pleasant Friend
Dec 30, 2008

https://apnews.com/article/biden-democrats-election-2024-campaign-fundraising-trump-6d16c590a1f1fed055b6544e36c03b9a

So does anyone know if Biden actually spent any of his fundraising yet on adverts to improve his polling? Also if the polls are so dire for him, shouldn't his fundraising be worse?

Mid-Life Crisis
Jun 13, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

Bel Shazar posted:

They're fascists fighting capitalists who have been using fascism as political and social control.

Word order matters

Point being, thereís no innocents in this fight. If you donít like the court stacking blame Ruth who started the precedence and finished it poorly.

Tnega
Oct 26, 2010

Pillbug

Pleasant Friend posted:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-democrats-election-2024-campaign-fundraising-trump-6d16c590a1f1fed055b6544e36c03b9a

So does anyone know if Biden actually spent any of his fundraising yet on adverts to improve his polling? Also if the polls are so dire for him, shouldn't his fundraising be worse?

Election spending is weird. Joe Biden has about 20 million on hand and spent about 2 million DNC spent around 50 million. Then the numerous Political action committees will get their spend, and you can become disillusioned of the whole process

B B
Dec 1, 2005

Biden's approval rating continues its free fall:

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1726240932507349100





NBC posted:

Poll: Bidenís standing hits new lows amid Israel-Hamas war

Young voters are breaking from Biden, helping give Trump a narrow lead for the first time in NBC News polling, though the gap is within the margin of error.

President Joe Bidenís approval rating has declined to the lowest level of his presidency ó 40% ó as strong majorities of all voters disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll.

Whatís more, the poll finds Biden behind former President Donald Trump for the first time in a hypothetical general-election matchup, although the deficit is well within the pollís margin of error for a contest thatís still more than 11 months away.

The erosion for Biden is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza, and among voters ages 18 to 34, with a whopping 70% of them disapproving of Bidenís handling of the war.

ďI do not support his support of Israel,Ē said Meg Furey, 40, a Democrat from Austin, Texas.

ďFailed promises, student loans, foreign policy in general,Ē said Democrat Zico Schell, 23, of San Diego, when asked why he disapproves of Bidenís job performance.

ďJoe Biden is at a uniquely low point in his presidency, and a significant part of this, especially within the Biden coalition, is due to how Americans are viewing his foreign policy actions,Ē said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies.

McInturff said he canít recall another time when foreign affairs not involving U.S. troops transformed the American political landscape.

ďThis poll is a stunner, and itís stunning because of the impact the Israel-Hamas war is having on Biden,Ē he said.

But Horwitt cautioned that Biden can bring these disaffected Democrats and younger voters back into the fold. ďThese are people who have a proven track record in voting for Biden and Democrats,Ē he said.

And, he added, thereís plenty of time ó and more potential political surprises to come ó between now and Election Day 2024, which could see the political landscape transform again.

ďJury verdicts in Trumpís trials, unforeseen events both foreign and domestic, and the rigors of a campaign all have a funny way of upending what may be true today,Ē Horwitt said.

According to the poll, 40% of registered voters approve of Bidenís job performance, while 57% disapprove, representing Bidenís all-time low in approval (and all-time high in disapproval) in the poll since becoming president.

Itís only a slight overall change from September, when Bidenís approval rating was at 41% ó which was then tied with his previous low in the poll.

Yet what stands out in the new survey is the shift among voters ages 18 to 34. In September, 46% of these voters said they approved of Bidenís job performance.

Now? Bidenís approval rating dropped to 31% among these voters.


Sixty-two percent now disapprove of Bidenís handling of foreign policy

In another low for the president, just 33% of all voters approve of Bidenís handling of foreign policy, which is down 8 points from September.

That compares with 62% of voters, including 30% of Democrats, who say they disapprove of the presidentís handling of foreign policy.

And only 34% of all voters approve of Bidenís handling of the Israel-Hamas war, versus 56% who say they disapprove.

By party, only half of Democratic voters (51%) say they approve of Bidenís handling of the war, compared with majorities of independents (59%) and Republicans (69%) who say they disapprove.

On the economy, fewer than 4 in 10 voters ó 38% ó say they approve of the presidentís handling of the issue, which is up 1 point from September.


Democrats are divided over the Israel-Hamas war

The NBC News poll ó conducted Nov. 10-14 ó comes more than a month after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed more than 1,000 Israelis, and the subsequent war in Gaza, which has killed thousands more Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials.

The poll finds a plurality of American voters, 47%, believing that Israel is defending its interests in the war, and that its military actions in Gaza are justified.

By comparison, 30% think that Israelís military actions have gone too far and are not justified. Another 21% say they donít know enough to have an opinion.

Yet among Democratic voters, 51% believe Israel has gone too far, versus 27% who say Israelís military actions are justified.

And while a majority of all voters (55%) support the United States providing military aid to Israel, almost half of Democrats (49%) say they oppose this aid.

Misunderstood
Jan 19, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

B B posted:

Biden's approval rating continues its free fall:

quote:

40%
Going by polling averages this looks like a completely normal result... not sure where I'm supposed to be seeing a "free fall"? (e: Actually pretty impressive how closely the NBC poll graph tracks the polling average graph.) I don't doubt that it's in a bit of a slide right now but everything about Trump and Biden's terms suggests it will bounce back up and generally linger in the high-30s, mid-40s. If somebody is, for whatever reason, hoping for some kind of W-esque bottom falling out, they should not hold their breaths.

I love how with so many polls there's always one where Biden did worse than he did in the previous poll by that firm, and the media hops on it for a free "Biden free fall!!!!" narrative and some cheap clicks.

Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Nov 19, 2023

Misunderstood
Jan 19, 2023

by Fluffdaddy
The press keeps harping on this "why aren't Biden's low approval numbers benefiting Republicans???" without considering that maybe a lot of people are disapproving from his left, and they would obviously not support Republicans.

I feel like the first example of them acting like opposition to Democratic policy could only be from the right, when it was clearly not true, was the ACA. During negotiations support would poll around 40%, but it always seemed to me like if you included people who were upset it wasn't single payer, or at least something with a public option, you would've had a 50%+ majority easily wanting Obamacare or something more, but the press framed it like 60% of the public was afraid of Death Panels.

Of course, nobody came out to give the Dems a "nice try!" vote in the midterms and they got demolished.

Tiny Timbs
Sep 6, 2008

Discendo Vox posted:

The gun movement is actually the weakest it's been in decades; NRA's in a slow process of collapse and public opinion has turned pretty heavily on the issue. If the House weren't completely busted right now, it'd be a pretty effective wedge issue going into 2024. The illusion of futility is part of the rhetorical playbook that the group uses to push against advocacy on the topic.

NRAís trying to rebrand itself as a #sports organization right now. I hope it works out terribly for them!

Nucleic Acids
Apr 10, 2007

B B posted:

Biden's approval rating continues its free fall:

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1726240932507349100





Joe Biden is flushing his presidency down the toilet on behalf of a country that absolutely loving hates him and is openly rooting for his likely opponent.

I AM GRANDO
Aug 20, 2006

I think most people hate him and his opponent, which is still not very good for him at all. Itís not great when we go a good ten years with the trusty old ďIíll shoot the hostages!Ē strategy from the democrats three times in a row. It worked once, I guess.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fart Amplifier
Apr 12, 2003

Nucleic Acids posted:

Joe Biden is flushing his presidency down the toilet on behalf of a country that absolutely loving hates him and is openly rooting for his likely opponent.

He'd also lose support if he didn't express support for Israel

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply