I don’t mean to disparage the real risk of antisemitism, but this might be making a mountain out of a molehill, and “thetimesofisrael” isn’t my favourite source in these times.
My point is rather that stabbings are pretty common in NYC. This guy have probably did have antisemitic motivations, I believe that, but in a city so large and so prone to violence, that’s sort of bound to happen at some point. It doesn’t justify it, but I think one shouldn’t be drawing conclusions of “growing antisemitism” because of one crazy in New York.
I don’t mean to disparage the real risk of antisemitism
But you’re going to do it anyway? Interesting strategy.
in a city so large and so prone to violence, that’s sort of bound to happen at some point.
This is a really stupid take. The violence did happen, and the motive appears to be ethnic hatred. Curious that you want the media to stay silent about it.
I think one shouldn’t be drawing conclusions of “growing antisemitism” because of one crazy in New York
So you’re just going to pretend that this is the first ever antisemitic incident that has ever occurred in NYC or elsewhere in recent history? The article doesn’t even cite rising antisemitism in NYC, but rather globally, which is objectively true. Antisemitic hate crimes (like this one) are on the rise worldwide.
Ngl, you sound like you have a pretty specific agenda with this response…
I am? When? You can read my future? What are the winning lottery numbers for this week’s draw?
appears to be
The word “appears” doing a lot of heavy lifting there. When researching sources, the stories have lines such as “allegedly”, kind of a lot in them. And still, I’m not questioning the veracity of it, am I?
Have you heard of “media criticism”? Or if you practice media criticism at all, it makes you an antisemite?
So you’re just going to pretend that this is the first ever antisemitic incident that has ever occurred in NYC or elsewhere in recent history?
Where on Earth did you pull this shit from?
The point is exactly that in a city the size of New York — unfortunate and unwanted as it is — hate crimes of all types, including antisemitism, are something that has always, (but hopefully will not always) happen.
With how explosive the rhetoric and protesting around this topic is, I fail to the importance of this story in the bigger picture.
I’m not gonna start whatabouting by linkingseveralinstances of some other group getting attacked, because this isn’t a competition on who is getting hatecrimed the most.
The point I am making is that unfortunate as this is, it’s implying something that it doesn’t back up.
(2) How is checks notes healthcare for inmates something we have to debate about? If you are incarcerated your well-being is the responsibility of the state. The government has to take care of you because you don’t get a choice in being there.
I’d be a little less skeptical of that claim if he hadn’t said that he’d be OK losing to Trump, “as long as I gave it my all.” I appreciate him stepping aside for the good of the country, but it took nearly a month of pressure from Democrats to get him to drop out, and I’m sure if the party leadership hadn’t turned in him, he’d be happy to take his chances against Trump.
It’s a 50/50 toss up after only 2 weeks of campaigning. Unless she does something to kill her own momentum, she’s in very good shape. Also, it’s pretty clear what would have happened if they stuck with Biden; Maine and New York were becoming competitive, there’s just no universe where he would have won.
Yeah, but he was on the downswing, while Harris is on the upswing. It just was not going to get better for him. Also, I can’t remember for sure, but I think he was significantly down on the most important swing states, and only polling about even nationally.
I mean, we have a Trump horse race now vs. a Trump blow out before. You may think his administration was great. Personally, I was surprised by how strong on labor he was, but disgusted by his handling of Gaza, and I think his blind institutionalism has made him too slow to react to an out of control Supreme Court. But those opinions don’t matter; he was not going to win after that debate. He came across as senile and confused, and he was not going to energize the base he needed to win. No matter what you think of his administration, he lost the election on June 27th, and we’re just lucky someone made him see that before it was too late.
To he honest, I think that if he had dropped out earlier it would have been better. He created a lot of panic within the base that didn’t need to be there. I suppose it’s not impossible that it was some kind of strategy to make Harris’ ascension more welcome and inevitable, but I think that’s giving him way too much credit.
Disagree entirely. This has left the Trump campaign totally twisting in the wind. They have no idea how to compete with a mixed-race independent and smart woman with her kindly dad running mate because they were hoping for Biden.
I mean, I don’t disagree that the switch has left Trump flailing, I just think that still happens if Biden drops out two weeks earlier than he did. It was clear by then that he had no chance of winning, and it would have saved voters a lot of fear and despair. You could argue that doing it after the RNC made the whole convention pointless, but given how poorly he’s done in a post Biden race, it’s just as likely that the entire thing would become an even more public meltdown.
Either way, I think the idea that this was a strategy is a fantasy. I think his actions and reporting at the time made it clear that he was planning to run, and it was only pressure from top Democrats that made him step down.
I want you to know that despite all the speculation in the press and elsewhere, I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump.
I have heard the concerns that people have — their good faith fears and worries about what is at stake in this election. I am not blind to them.
I can respond to all this by saying clearly and unequivocally: I wouldn’t be running again if I did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.
The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party. Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?
I decline to do that… I have no doubt that I — and we — can and will beat Donald Trump.
Unless this was all part of an elaborate hoax, it’s clear he had no intention of dropping out at that time.
I don’t think it was a hoax, but campaign 101 is to be absolutely confident in your candidacy until the nanosecond you drop out. If you telegraph weakness to the voting public, and then end up staying in the race, that will be a millstone around your neck. Even if he was wavering in the weeks leading up to his dropout, there would be zero upside to communicating that publicly.
It’s possible, but I personally don’t buy that argument. He didn’t have to sit down and write that letter, but he did. That, plus the interview where he said that “giving it his all” was “what it was all about”, seemed obvious to me he was all for holding on tight despite everyone’s concerns.
I give him a pass for that statement. Biden was running on the platform of election trust and legitimacy. How else does he answer the question? “No, and I’ll fight tooth and nail to dispute the results if Trump wins?”. Maybe the democratic base would have loved to hear that, but it’s mixed messaging that would have been used as ammunition against him. He’s the President of the United States. He has to project confidence in the system, which means trying hard to win, but stopping right on the dot at “doing your best” and accepting the will of the people, even if it’s a distasteful outcome for everyone involved.
Honestly, I still think that’s a pretty terrible answer when your entire campaign messaging has been, “Democracy will end if you elect this man.” I think if he had said something like, “I understand the stakes of this election, I would feel horrible if I lost and let the American people down, but it less than 5 months to the election and I am the best positioned candidate to defeat him,” that would have been a much more reasonable answer. It would have been wrong (clearly), but at least it wouldn’t have sounded like he was losing a little league game.
Oh yeah, I hated the answer he gave too, but it was pretty clear he wasn’t expecting the question either. It was a bad answer and a mistake, but definitely one of the less egregious mistakes his campaign had been making in the weeks leading up to his departure from the campaign trail. At it’s core, being satisfied with doing your best is a sentiment most people can agree with, but one that falls short of what we actually needed. It did not resonate with the people who were upset with him at the time. We needed Biden to be ruthless after his debate disaster, but he was still playing softball at the major leagues.
Kaiser Family Foundation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Kaiser Family Foundation:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
This is the political landscape in a nutshell. Someone from the left makes a statement backed by reality about bettering society then someone on the right says some childish shit and name calls. How perfect.
Are you even capable of having a mature, adult conversation? Without all this school yard stuff and insults, just facts and we’ll formed stances on topics.
Let me ask this, after Trump’s time in office what did he accomplish that helps you? You said we’ll having nothing to show, what do you have to show from Trump? He decreased taxes for the rich, so if you’re rich I get it, otherwise I’m curious.
They do numerous things that impact you. If you don’t realize this then you’re just uniformed. I don’t say that to be mean, but if you think laws, policies, and elections don’t impact you at all then you’re just wrong. Taxes, medical costs, gas prices through negotiations, involvement in wars, infrastructure bills, holding companies accountable, immigration policies, gun laws, just to name a few. Take whatever things you care most about and I guarantee politics impacts them in some way.
Walz is good, but he doesn’t have the experience she has. But the VP plays a role in politics and is second in line to the leader of our country, them being a good person is important.
You seem to be of the mind that they all do nothing and all this discourse is pointless BS, so why are you even here? Why waste your time reading a post title about politics, click into it, then engage in a conversation?
So you ever actually read his platform? Look into what he has done? Tim has sound and practical reasons for … guess what… doing the right thing.
Feed school children for example. Turns out the grades go up and truancy goes down. Juvenile crime goes down. An educated workforce makes for better wages and a happier populace. He will tell you that… in plain English.
Instead of blaming everyone else and calling names he, you know, fills potholes and offers solutions. He isn’t perfect, but you calling names and acting like an ass with no actuall reasons is just pathetic.
This has nothing to do with “ageism”, which is a statistical idea applied individually. I’m discussing statistics applied to the appropriate population. I’m discussing the idea that a population, which holds no interest in the outcome of a decision, should stay the hell out of that decision. Check yourself.
I have no problem with elderly voting. My question is why do they vote?
This is why the right keeps attacking social security; to keep folks who don’t actually have a stake in the future at the voting booths. Then, en masse, they vote against equality and the very future of our planet’s surface all because of outdated ideologies. Because of their self-centeredness, they hold back progress.
WHY do they vote when they won’t be here to see the result? Do they think the generations that will are too stupid to govern themselves?
This has nothing to do with “ageism”, which is an statistical idea applied individually.
While I disagree with that statement, especially in this context, I'm glad to see that you understand the difference between discussing statistics about a demographic population (identified by observation of past events) and inappropriately applying those statistics to an individual.
When you said
The elderly need to SIT DOWN. It’s not their planet anymore, and they need to get over it.
You were insisting on specific future actions ("SIT DOWN" and "get over it"). Actions are taken by individuals. Age is a characteristic that individuals do not have control of. It is not a decision, and we don't cast aspersions on people for things they do not have control of.
Again.. it’s not agesist when you literally call out the entire population for doing the thing that population does.
There it is again.
The entire population - every individual who is a member of the specified population - does not do the thing which is observed to be in the statistical majority for that population (if that's even the case here).
Ok, school time. You are conflating the “entire” population with “every member” of the population. Perhaps you should actually learn about the thing you are trying to correct others about.
Do you also buy the Vance line that people who don’t have kids should not vote because they don’t have skin in the game? At what age are you too old (or need to have kids by) to be concerned about the future? And regardless of “the future” at least some policy’s are about right now. Like the abortion bans or getting rid of Medicare or social security, or raising taxes or regulation of sources of heat or stoves etc… These matter to people till they die ffs.
To clarify here - do you think that people should be forced to leave school boards as soon as their kids graduate? Do they end up eligible again if their kids have grandkids? Is this limited to people with kids going to that specific school? Also, does paying school taxes not make you have some skin in the game?
And what about just input on the society you live in? It seems to me the solution in your example would be to have younger people run for / contest the school board.
I want to go on the record on the side of "Yes, people without kids are absolutely capable of caring about education."
But I also wanted to offer a correction:
Is this limited to people with kids going to that specific school?
School boards are for the school district, which is obviously composed of many elementary schools, junior highs, high schools. Without speaking for every school district in the country, I would expect that school board members would need to be residents of the district.
Here try this: Do you think people from Russia should vote in our elections? If you put any thought at all into your argument, you’ll see in advance that you lose this little debate.
If you made an argument, I could perhaps put some thought into it. My argument is simply that Russia isn’t paying our taxes, and is a different country, so there’s no comparison I can think of.
People living in an area paying taxes for that school have every right to be on the school board - it’s a direct application of “no taxation without representation” in which kind of implied in the US is the right to run for the office and be elected to the office. We fought a revolution over taxes and representation. So, not - I put some thought into this and think I just won the debate right there.
It’s not that they’re indifferent- not that they don’t care. It’s punishment. Anything to make their lives worse is a good thing. The prisoners “deserve” this treatment. Also, they’re slaves and have no real standing to challenge the treatment under the law (source: vibes).
Pelosi is a fossilized old barnacle that need to be scraped from the hull. If you’re old enough to remember when steam was the number one source of power, it’s time to step aside and let some younger blood take the reins.
Who will replace her if she suddenly passes away because shes 84? She should be ensuring the party can function without her. She should be spinning up the next generation of leaders before it becomes critical. We shouldn’t have to Weekend at Bernie’s politicians in order to keep the government from collapsing.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.