was “not able to accept reservations from persons we believe might have ties to the Israeli army,”
Doesn’t Israel have mandatory service of 1-2 years for young adults? This means every citizen has ‘ties’ to their army. I wonder whether the news is avoiding that fact since it changes a few narratives, if so.
Recently Israel bombed a medic and claimed he was a combatant. They had a picture of someone that looked like the man sitting in a military uniform in 2019. However that person was not an active combatant at all.
Their only intelligence to designate him as Hamas was a deep learning match on the picture and the man’s face.
Assuming it was realy the medic in the picture, If any person that was ever affiliated with Hamas is a valid target the same would count for the IDF.
Meaning all Israeli civilians that ever served in the IDF suddenly count as military targets.
I’d like this to be true, but remember that these national polls are not helpful to predict the electoral college. Unfortunately, Trump comfortably leads in many must-win states for Biden. Polls are usually wrong, but it’s the best information we’ve got.
If you’re leading by 1.5 points with a margin of error of 2 points, then it’s most likely that your lead is real. The range of error is a bell curve. It’s more likely for a well-conducted poll to be off by 0.5 points than 1.5.
Because the Republicans have a built-in advantage in the Electoral College, a Democratic presidential candidate has to be several points ahead in a national poll to even think about being level, in terms of electoral votes, which are the only things that really count in a presidential race.
…in a polarized environment in which some people are unstable, evil, or for whatever other reason prone to take the law into their own hands…
I insist that violence has no legitimate place in our political system and condemn both this act specifically and any physical attacks on politicians or anyone else for their political expression.
I sincerely hope the system has all of the tools and mechanisms necessary to prevent the rise of fascism in the US, because if it doesn’t, and it turns out that stopping fascism will require stepping outside the bounds of the law, then fascism will rise, as it seems most people are unwilling to break the law to prevent it.
A sensible, too-little-too-late rule, probably full of carveouts and exceptions, that I nonetheless feel really relieved to see. Delayed and watery regulation is better than none, I suppose.
There are those who see through Trump’s bullshit and those who don’t. And those who see through it won’t have their views changed by this event.
We know how Trump would have reacted if the tables were turned. He wouldn’t have condemned the violence. He would have made evasive and vague statements suggesting that the violence should continue. We know that because he has done it before. Many times. As a matter of fact he did call for political violence against Hillary in 2016 when he suggested that “the second amendment people should do something about it”.
We are not fooled. We might not approve of political violence. But no amount of playing the victim is doing to make us forget that he is still a scumbag. We will vote him out.
There are those who see through Trump’s bullshit and those who don’t.
What has baffled me for the past eight years is how many people, since day one, have not observed him for who he really is. I still can not comprehend how he was elected president and is again the nominee for the Republican Party.
He has zero redeeming qualities. By all measures, he has the record of being the worst president in modern times. But most people don’t actually care about legislation or politics or this country - they only care about themselves and the “vibe” they get from someone.
We live in a world where verifiable lies are shaping our reality. The people who claim to be patriots are traitors to the intent of this nation. I just do not understand how the brains of some people veil them from what’s being presented directly in front of them. Moreover, I have no idea how this doesn’t keep getting worse.
He has a cult of personality. They (the GOP) don’t seem to like him either based on how many of them denounced him at various points over the past 8 years, but they know he’s their best chance of winning, so they made him the candidate. They don’t care who the candidate is, as long as it’s one of their people.
I have a friend who is obsessed with learning about cults, and he recently said that Trump’s speeches sound exactly like Jim Jones.
The way it works is that you say something kinda crazy and lose maybe 10% of your followers. Now you know what you can get away with with the other 90%. Repeat this until you get the 30-50% of people that will eat up anything you say (or won’t leave due to sunk cost fallacy/can’t admit that they were wrong), and you have Trump’s base.
These are people who have either drunk the Flavor-Aid, love him because he says the things they’re afraid to say out loud, or are just too deep now and can’t get out.
Trump maintains lead: Trump continues to lead Biden by 2 percentage points, 44% to 42%, unchanged from the previous week and superior to his standing in the lead-up to the first 2024 presidential debate, when the candidates were tied. The latest data was collected Friday through Sunday, meaning most responses were gathered before Saturday’s assassination attempt on Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.
Additionally, I don’t see any polls listed out here either that have been able to do a complete poll since the assassination attempt:
Maybe impartial information more than disinformation. It’s still likely the responses from late Saturday and Sunday would have impacted the percentage by at least 1 or 2 points. The fact it stayed the same hopefully means that at best it simply prevented Biden from taking the lead.
Maybe, but considering this information is highlighted in the poll’s key points (immediately following and under the same point used for the title) doesn’t look good. It means that Newsweek is either doing a poor job at covering this (they didn’t even provide a direct link to the poll), or they are intentionally leaving out key details.
It’s also possible that they are only looking at a subset of the data that only focuses on people that were questioned the day after the event, but without a pro+ subscription I can’t tell if seperating out that group is even possible (if it even lists out which day a person was questioned) and that’s ignoring the impact on the reliability of those numbers given a largely reduced dataset.
Morning Consult Pro+ subscribers are able to access the data sets that power Morning Consult Pro’s reports and analysis
In the end, I’m waiting to see what the polls look like in battleground states to see how this event has really affected the situation.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.