#because if majority vote for one party

[double-gs]

I need to know something if you're from the UK

#this is no grill #im curious because i need to see what party is majority winning #because if majority vote for one party #it will most likely be the same in general elections #uk #uk politics #england #united kingdom #general election #conservatism #conservatives #tory #labour #activism #green party #scottish national party #reform uk #liberals #left wing #leftism #leftist #right wing #womens rights #human rights #politics

[andromedasummer]

this shit sucks. tomorrow is a stay in bed and set up a writing blog day. mend my clothes day. move some boxes day.

#looks like racist grandpa is weaseling into parliament with right wing and Extra Right Wing #so all three of these parties is gonna be a clusterfuck of a govt because they fucking HATE each othet #nats have only got themselves to blame got not scrounging up enough votes to make a majority without the fucking gutter scum #to bolster their numbers #i dont want to even begin to think about how bad the housing market is about to become now foreign buyers are gonna be able #to come in and buy holiday homes again while most people cant even afford to buy their first house #and no cause evictions are gonna come back #our new pms hero is david cameron and he raised his family in fundementalist christian organization in the us #before coming back here. taking over our biggest airline #and proceeded to either 1. actively make the decision to underhandedly sell plane parts yo the saudis #2. was so incompetent he didnt notice that his company was underhandedly selling plane parts to the saudis #and national went ''yeah this guy who runs away mid-interview when he doesnt like the questions and who is a doormat in debates will do'' #we have a wet fucking mop of a bigot for our pm now and we're stuck with him for the next 3 years and THATS THE GOOD PART COMPARED #TO EITHER ONE OF THE RACISTS WHO ARE GONNA BECOME DEPUTY OM #*PM #hhhhfUCK

[keyrousse]

Seeing posts about the current situation (war) in Israel, describing the events from two very opposite sides, is the main reason you see nothing of it on my blog.

#I know nobody asked #but those posts were one of the reasons I was pissed off yesterday #hence that short post in Polish #because I was pissed off and tired after work #after reading the news about Polish future government #(the currently leading party got the most votes in the election so they won #but they have no chance of forming the government #because they can't get the majority in the parliament #but our president is their notary basically #so here we go with some more weeks of a fucking mess before the opposition hopefully forms the government) #my sister lost a piece of her tooth because she was chewing a gum despite having bruxism #and it's very difficult to get her an appointment at a reasonable time #so I come home and open Tumblr to relax #and I see Israeli army committing genocide on the Palestinians on one side #and some blatant antisemitism on the other #fuck off #I'm on antibiotics and various other medicines and I don't want to drink alcohol #there you have it #me venting in the tags again #about me

[aroacehanzawa]

gonna kms what is this dystopia

#/j #one of the predictions for the parliamentary election is that the majority will be won by the right wing conservative anti-immigration part #that is literally called 'true finns' so you can imagine what kind of party it is #@people who are like oh finland is super socialist and cares about the welfare of everyone etc NO we are not immune to national conservatis #every election they are gaining more and more traction and this one has the risk that we will end up with a True Finn prime minister #UNLESS the left wing parties pull through on the actual election day #because predictions are still just predictions and hopefully these news will get more people to reconsider who they'll vote for

[rosalesbeausderholle]

All the people who are like 'participating in politics does nothing!' like politicians make me mad with rage too with their spineless bullshit and hypocrisy and the rest, and no, they never do near enough and that's very frustrating, and many of them are greedy fucks who would betray us over their own interests in a heartbeat, but it's still a very bad sign to go 'don't vote it's useless' because the revolution isn't going to happen if you can't even participate in the democratic process in your own country and that nihilistic attitude does nothing but hand your country (general you, this goes for all of us) over to fascists, and it's very hypocritical to act like there hasn't been a lot of progress with anti-racism, pro-women, pro-lgbt (among others!!) legislation that was passed in the last 100 years, and that was all due to pressuring the right politicians into it. You don't have to like the politicians, they're not your friends, you just have to pressure them into doing what you want. So, yes, pressuring the right politicians leftwards and keeping them in power is how we've had a lot of very important legislation passed! So, participate in politics, it's literally the least you can do (of course, please do more).

#the right shows up to vote every single fucking time they aren't divided by petty issues like we are #they have a single minded goal #and they organize and they get it done #the left meanwhile can't even put aside their differences for even one second #like in my own country i have issues eith every leftist party for one reason or other #i like podemos more except for their neoliberal bullshit when it comes to women's rights #and psoe is a bit more like traditional feminism which is good but for the rest they're so establishment they hurt #and they've had their major share of fuck ups #but I've gone every single time because it's literally five minute of my time #yes politicians should always do better #but they'll never be perfect politics and international diplomacy is too complicated a business not to fuck it up #but I'd still rather the people who are currently working in Spain to pass the Nordic model to expand lgbt rights who've expanded maternity #leave etc #I'd still rather they be in power than the party who denies violence against women is real and wants to forbid it to talk about lgbt ppl #in schools and wants to start chiping over at our right to marriage #and I don't care how assimilationist or neoliberal that right to a patriarchal construct is i deserve it #call me when you get rid of all marriage #oh i forgot a higher minimum wage among the reforma

[mariacallous]

Congress and President Joe Biden largely prevented hunger from getting worse during the pandemic with a series of stopgap measures that expanded benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), fed children when closed schools suspended free lunches for the most vulnerable and helped food banks obtain groceries.

But several of those programs have ended this year and dramatic inflation has made it even more difficult to afford groceries, leaving many food banks with empty shelves and hungry Americans wondering how to make ends meet.

The Ohio collective’s warehouse was alarmingly empty before the charity dipped into its own funds to buy increasingly expensive items that previously would have been donated or provided by federal programs, said Mike Hochron, senior vice-president of communications for the group. Supply chain problems have made the problem worse: at least 80 truckloads of cereal and pasta have been canceled in the past year, he said.

“The biggest shift is we have to buy a whole lot more,” Hochron said, standing in a cavernous warehouse with shelves of crackers, soap, ground meat, papayas and other grocery items. “In some cases, our buying power is half what it was a couple of years ago.”

Despite similar stories from food banks around the country, direct discussions about food security have been seemingly missing from many political races in battleground states, though Republicans nationally have been campaigning more broadly on inflation and the cost of living, while protecting abortion after the fall of Roe v Wade has been a key issue for Democrats.

In Ohio, for instance, hunger is not mentioned among the key issues on the campaign websites for Senate candidates JD Vance and Tim Ryan, even as they debate issues such as crime that are often caused by hunger. Neither candidate responded to interview requests.

In the Ohio governor’s race, Democratic challenger Nan Whaley has proposed a $350 (£313) “inflation rebate” for most residents, in part to pay for food. Her opponent, Republican incumbent Mike DeWine, does not mention food or hunger on his campaign site.

US politicians have a long history of ignoring hunger as a campaign issue, said Ann Crigler, a political science professor at the University of Southern California. That’s partly because it’s embarrassing and partly because they don’t know how to fix it, she said.

“People don’t want to admit there’s this big problem happening here,” Crigler said. “They act like it’s something that only happens overseas.”

The same absence is true of the campaign platforms of the Pennsylvania candidates John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz, who are locked in a tight Senate race.

Some say it’s hard to imagine hunger not being a key issue in the midterm elections, whether or not candidates are discussing it.

“I think people are more aware today than they were a few years ago about what’s at stake,” said the Massachusetts congressman James McGovern, who helped organize the recent White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, the first such gathering since 1969. “Food prices have gone up, fuel costs have gone up. I really do think people get it. We’ll see.”

And yet several food bank clients interviewed across the country said they either don’t plan to vote or wouldn’t take food policies into account if they did.

Kimberly Burkins, who lives in a motel in York, Pennsylvania, supplements her federal food stamps with food from the local Salvation Army, said she nevertheless doesn’t support expanding federal hunger programs.

“I appreciate the assistance, but I don’t think people should be getting free things,” said Burkins, who spent two years on disability benefits and makes just $800 (£716) a month.

The idea that hungry people would vote against their own interests is rooted in society’s broken philosophy of the “undeserving poor”, said Marion Nestle, a retired New York University professor of nutrition, food studies and public health.

“These ingrained attitudes that the poor are undeserving, that they brought it on themselves, that poverty is somehow self-inflicted, are so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that it has to be taught out of you,” Nestle said. “You have to really understand how societies work to understand why some people are poor and some people aren’t.”

Some food bank clients said they understand the distinction. Josh and Misty Murray, parents of three who were waiting in a Ford pickup at the Ohio food bank, said hunger policies would be on their minds at the polls. Both state employees, they started coming to the food bank six months ago after their rent jumped by 15%.

“It’s a hit on your ego, but you do what you gotta do to feed your family,” Josh Murray said. “It was coming down to keeping the lights on or having meals.”

In Larimer county, Colorado, north of Denver, the local food bank has seen a 33% increase in visits to its brick-and-mortar pantries since January and a 67% increase at its mobile pantries, said Amy Pezzani, CEO of the Larimer county food bank. And while clients used to rely on the pantries for about a quarter of their food, many now receive nearly all their food from the charity, Pezzani said.

And while clients previously visited those pantries about once a month, they now average nearly three visits per month, she said.

“In our area, the cost of housing has increased exponentially and has increased much faster than wages,” Pezzani said. Congress should make some of the pandemic measures permanent to prevent even more hunger, she added. “We’re going to need to do more, especially if we keep seeing these increases.”

As in other battleground states, neither Colorado Senate candidate – Michael Bennet or Joe O’Dea – lists hunger prevention as a priority.

Food bank leaders and experts said they hope voters – whether hungry or not – understand the importance of their decisions in November. With a possible recession looming and Congress failing to codify some of the most effective pandemic aid programs, the upcoming elections could dramatically affect hunger in the next year.

About one-third of people without consistent access to food are ineligible for Snap benefits, said Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, a Northwestern University economics professor. The country needs better policies to keep hungry people from falling through the cracks, she said.

“A lot of these pandemic relief ideas have come and gone,” said Whitmore Schanzenbach, who attended the White House hunger conference. “I wish we would have kept some of them. The child tax credit reduced poverty 50%. Why didn’t we keep it?”

Lisa Ortega, 64, was forced to turn to the Larimer county food bank about three years ago when a series of health problems put her out of work. She lives in a Habitat for Humanity-built house in Loveland, Colorado, and said she hopes voters show a little empathy when they head to the polls.

“People need to look at this and change their ideas,” Ortega said. “Someday they may be in this situation where they have to go to the food bank. It happened to me.”

#I don't agree with some of the framing or way information is being presented here - because the reason why we haven't been able to expand #programs or better address these issues is a combination of lack of votes in Congress to do so and people not voting in elections #and ideological cruelty on behalf of one of the major parties in this country like... #it's not some 'oh my god however could this happen?! whomst ever is to blame?!' #the same party that en masse voted against providing benefits and aid to fucking burn pit veterans out of anger at political negotiations #also don't give a fuck about addressing hunger or inequality

[luhrmannatural]

anyway! this is why which political party you vote for does matter! i know too many people on the left who straight up don’t vote because “both parties are the same” and yeah they’re both corrupt but at least one of them is not actively trying to chip away at our civil rights! anyone who isn’t voting straight blue in november block me right now for real you make me more angry than conservatives at least they fucking VOTE

#you’re either voting with the best shot to protect human rights or you should get out of my house <3 #‘conservatives are the ones you should be focused on they’re actually supporting this ideology!’ #and? if you’re not doing what you can you’re no better #also i’m a florida voter so yeah those bullshit third party votes DO matter. they need to be blue. desantis WILL run for president #it sent me into a rage before now when people said this like i had one friend tell me that both parties are the same once and like. #i remember the day after trump won my 11 year old cousin called me sobbing saying she was afraid to go to school the next day #because the anglo kids were chanting to build a wall at her majority latin school #those people would’ve still been there regardless of who won ofc #but no way would they have felt safe enough to act if that ideology hadn’t been endorsed by an election! #if you think both parties are the same it’s because you have enough privilege to not pay attention to the way #the people in power can embolden some really ugly shit #i’m sure now people will start to care more since obergefell is in danger and god forbid we jeopardize the white gays!! i’m so tired #don’t even think about sending me a confrontational ask about this i will delete it on sight #and btw if you want to actually vote outside the two party system local elections are right there!! and super important!! don’t ignore them! #a.txt #politics #abortion cw #<- tangentially. please lmk if you’d like me to tag this as anything else!

[ninewheels]

I’m seeing a lot of, on the one hand, “who else am I supposed to vote for if not the Democrats?” and “voting is pointless because Democrats are horrible too”, and to both camps I offer the same rebuttal:

Vote for better Democrats. This is the point of primaries.

#and yes when the better Democrats lose primaries still vote for the worse ones in generals #because the few better Democrats who do get in have more power if they're in the majority party #Biaggi for NY-17

[torgawl]

i voted 😕

#i'm not satisfied with my vote but whatever #i identify with the other two parties that i was pondering more but this one is at risk of not having a seat in the parliament and they #have made and supported really good propositions in regards to the social/environmentalist side of politics #whereas the other two who i identify a lot more with don't make as many propositions and have sort of a secured place even with low #percentage. i feel conflicted because i wanted to support one of those two but also knowing the other one is at risk of not being there at #all is a bit disappointing so i feel like my vote makes sense #those 3 parties are always on the right side of good causes too so i feel like it's fair wanting to keep all of them there?! #actual socialism is dying in my country save me 😭 the two best parties in that regard will have around 5% of votes each #which are the ones i actually support #but alas. anyway let's wait and see how things turn out later... not excited. i hope the left wins but the major 'leftist' party sucks 😭 #just not as much as the other major option 😭 #and by leftist i mean they have socialist in the name but they're not socialist they aren't really progressive either lol #i hate this country

[poetry-protest-pornography]

Listen, friends.

Someone is going to be elected president in November. There are going to be two options. There is no world in which someone who is not Biden or the GOP nominee -- presumably, somehow, Trump -- win the election.

Is Biden my favorite politician? No.

Has he accomplished a ton of good things in the last three years? Absolutely yes.

Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and dangerous.

If you do not vote, you are voting for fascism, full stop. Because you know who always shows up to vote? Your shitty racist neighbors, and the white nationalists trying to stop affirmative action, and the homophobic gun owners who want the party that's made dismantling marriage equality and civil protections for queer people a part of their platform, and religious fundamentalists who believe that women should be the subject of their husbands. They vote in drives, because they don't demand perfection from their candidates, just that they hate the same way they do, and do it loudly.

This left wing thing where people yell about how voting for a candidate that doesn't check every box is a valid political protest is deeply stupid and absolutely wrong. All this accomplishes is to discourage voting and make people stop trying to push for better from our politicians.

Not voting for a candidate that doesn't do everything you want them to is giving a point to the one that wants to bring out loud fascism to the US.

There will be a winner in November, and it's going to be A or B. The system sucks, but it's the one we have, and if we don't vote for the one who is actively working for at least some of the right things, we're going to end up with the one that's working for stripping rights away from the majority of Americans.

Just fucking vote.

#vote #vote blue #us politics #this was more eloquent in my head but whatever I'm so fucking scared and angry #block me babs

[theworldgate]

I have to explain what is going on in the UK, because it is absurd.

So, this is Gary Lineker:

He's known for a fair few things over here. He was a very good (association) footballer, playing for England in the 1986 and 1990 World Cups, winning the Golden Boot in 1986, and managing to never get a single yellow card in his playing career. He played for Leicester City, Everton, Barcelona, and Tottenham, before finishing his career in Japan. But if you aren't in your mid 30s, you probably know actually know him him for a couple of other things. The first is the role of spokesman for another Leicester icon, Walkers Crisps (which are sort of equivalent to Lays, but hit different), as pictured above. Despite being a notably clean player, he used to play a cheeky serial crisp thief. I don't think he's done that for well over a decade, but his ads were on the telly a lot when I was a kid and it's a bit like learning that the hamburglar was an incredibly clean (American) football player or something.

The second thing Gary is widely known for is having presented Match of the Day, the big football program on the BBC, the sort-of state broadcaster, since 1999. He is, incidentally, very well paid for this (though with a consensus that he could get even more if he went to one of the non-free-to-view broadcasters because he is very good at the job). He also has a twitter account. And political opinions. So, the UK government has got itself dead set upon doing heinous stuff that will totally somehow work to prevent people who want to come to the UK making the perilous crossing of the Channel (between England and France). By heinous, I mean "openly advertise that they won't attempt to protect victims of modern slavery" stuff. It's very obviously using a legal hammer to victimise a marginalised group of people in order to win votes. And, uh, I should clarify that by "legal" I mean "using the passage of laws" - the policy is, in addition to all the other ways it's awful, probably incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the UK's international law obligations. Gary, top lad that he is, objected to this. On Tuesday 7th March, he made a quote Tweet of a video of the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, bigging up the policy, he wrote "Good heavens, this is beyond awful.". This got a bunch of backlash from extremely right-wingers, and then he made the tweet that really got him in trouble (with right-wingers): "There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?".

Now, I am not actually subjecting myself to watching a video of Suella Braverman bigging up a cruel policy to say whether the specific comparison of the language to 1930s Germany is accurate. But needless to say, Ms Braverman was amongst the many figures on the right of UK politics objecting to Gary's rhetoric. And here's the part where a fact about the BBC comes in: it is nominally neutral and impartial (and so, of course, is routinely accused of bias from all sides but particularly the right-wing), and has something of a code for its contributors to this effect. Now, that code has previously been applied to Gary Lineker, over a comment about whether governing Conservative Party would hand back donations from figures linked to the Russian regime. But it generally hasn't been applied too strongly to people like Gary, whose roles have nothing to do with politics (such as presenting a "here's what happened on the footie today" show), on the basis that, well, their roles have nothing to do with politics. However, when directly asked about whether the BBC should punish Gary Lineker for his tweets, government figures basically went "well, that's a them problem". But a couple of days passed, and it seemed like Gary's approach of "standing his ground because he did nothing wrong" was working and everything would die down. He was set to get 'a talking to' but not much more than that. The Conservative right, after all their fire and fury earlier, had gotten bored and moved onto something else. And then, on Friday 10th March, the BBC announced that he would be suspended from hosting Match of the Day this weekend. But it could still go ahead, because there are, like, other hosts! Except, well, funnily enough, when you take a beloved figure off air, for making a fairly anodyne tweet, no one wants to be the scab who actually takes up the role of replacing him. Gary's two co-hosts, Alan Shearer and Ian Wright, said that they would not appear without him. People who (co-)host Match of the Day on other days followed suit. The net result is that Match of the Day is currently set to air without hosts, BBC commentary, or global feed commentary. And the solidarity shown to Gary Lineker, over what is very flagrantly actual cancel culture and an attack on freedom of speech (the logic implied is that institutional impartiality requires that no one say anything too critical of the government ever), has continued to grow. The BBC has pretty much been unable to run pretty much any live sports content today, and has resorted to raiding the BBC Sounds archive to fill the sports radio channel. And, as of 17:30 on Saturday 11th March, the situation shows no signs of improvement, though some are calling for the Chairman Richard Sharp, who is separately facing corruption allegations, to resign (yes I linked to the BBC itself there, there is nothing, nothing, the BBC loves more than going into great detail about how much the BBC sucks).

#bbc #gary lineker #football #politics #uk politics #long post is long #text #motd #match of the day

[qqueenofhades]

i registered to vote for the first time ( i feel old) now that im an adult but my state has closed primary elections which i was wondering if you have an opinion about. my initial thought was that its bad because i had to register democrat (rather than my states green party which represents my beliefs more) just so i could vote between democrat candidates, which feels like being pressured into supporting the weird pseudo two party system we have. but then i looked it up and apparently a reason for this is so that people from opposing parties wont purposefully mess up the votes just so that their preferred candidates have an easier time winning, and i think that makes sense too. but is that actually the reason theyve closed it or is it just to force us dem/republican?? cause it feels strange

Okay, look. I respect the fact that you're a young person, and I appreciate that you have not only registered to vote, but plan to vote in the primaries, so I don't want to lecture you too much. That said: I am taking you out for coffee, I am sitting you down, I am looking into your eyes, and I am urgently telling you the following:

The Green Party is a scam. It is a scam. It has existed for decades in American politics as an empty shell corporation weaponizing the good intentions of young people like yourself, because all it theoretically stands for "it's good to save the planet maybe." Which is not something that any non-insane person seriously disagrees with, but there is no world in which that cause is actually furthered by registering/voting Green (you mentioned that you did vote for Democrats, which -- good, but listen to me here, youngun, okay?) It ran Jill Stein in 2016 to siphon more votes from HRC, and this election it plans to run Cornel West, a pro-Russian tankie who positively equated Bernie and Trump, as another spoiler candidate. It does not stand for "protecting the planet" or America in any real way. It has never elected a single senator or congressman, let alone a president. It stands for empty performance/grievance political theater by those people who feel too morally superior to vote for/affiliate with Democrats, often because the internet has told them that it's not Cool or Hip or Progressive enough.

If your main priority is climate/the environment, you're doing the right thing by registering as a Democrat and voting for Democrats. (Also: the adjectival form is Democratic. It is the Democratic party and Democratic candidates, otherwise you sound like the Fox News host who wrote a book literally entitled "The Democrat Party Hates America.") They are the only major party who has in fact passed major climate legislation and have made environmental justice a central tenet of their platform. As opposed to the Republicans, whose Project 2025, along with the rest of its nightmare fascist prescriptions, openly pledges to completely wreck existing climate protections and forbid any new ones, just because we weren't all dying fast enough under their death-cult rule already. That's the main logical fallacy I don't get among both the Online Leftists and the American electorate in general: "the Democrats aren't doing quite enough as I'd like, so I'll enable the active wrecking ball insane lunatics to get in power and ruin even the progress we HAVE managed to make!" Like. How does that even make sense?

On a federal level, the Greens have contributed nothing whatsoever of tangible value to American or international climate policy/legislation, environmental justice, or anything else, because as noted, they don't have any elected candidates and mostly focus on drawing voters away from Democrats. There might be plenty of good candidates on the local or city level, which -- great! Vote away for Greens if they're available, or the only other option is a Republican! But on the federal/primary level, please understand: once again, they are a scam. There is no point in affiliating yourself with them. You're welcome to register Green and vote Democratic, if that makes you feel better or if you prefer having another label next to your name, but once again, I'm telling you in my position as a salty Tumblr elder that they have done nothing but harm to the causes they claim to care about, because "environment" is such a nebulous priority and has demonstrably been hijacked to stop the American government entity, i.e. the Democrats, that is actually working to improve on it.

As for your question: nobody is "forcing" or "pressuring" you to vote in primaries. By your own admission, you made a conscious choice to register as a Democrat in order to vote for Democratic candidates. If you were just a regular registered voter of whatever party affiliation, you would vote in the general election for whatever candidate the primary process produced. But if you are sufficiently vested and committed to that process that you would like to have a say in who is running under that party label, it is not unreasonable that you would register as a member of that party. Nobody has twisted your arm behind your back and made you do so; you are taking a considerable level of initiative on your own. Likewise, open primaries can be both a good and bad thing. This falls under the "the political system we have is flawed, but we can't magically pretend it doesn't exist and act according to our own fantasyland versions of reality" thing that I keep saying over and over. So yes, if you want a role in shaping the Democratic candidates who emerge from a Democratic primary process, you will usually register as a Democrat, and nobody has forced you to do that. It's that simple.

Likewise as a general programming note: I'm trying to cut back on politics a bit right now, because I don't have the spoons/bandwidth/mental health to deal with it. I apologize. So if you've sent me a politics-related ask recently and haven't received a response, I'm not deliberately or maliciously ignoring you; I just am not able to handle it as much as usual and will have to put it on pause. However, I feel as if this is important enough to be worth saying, so, yeah.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

[fairuzfan]

Would you rather have a president that enables a genocide? Or would you rather have a president that vilifies immigrants, promotes facism, dismantles the rights of women and minorities, emboldens white nationalists, worsens the wage gap, defunds vital services, AND enables a genocide?

It's an unfair and unreasonable question to ask. I know. Unfortunately those are our choices for president. It sucks, but it's a 2 party system. And until any change is made where a 3rd party vote is no longer equivalent to not voting at all, it's better to just vote blue for the presidential election. Not because Democrats are the "lesser evil", but because NOT having a Republican president will prevent further suffering of Americans and will lessen the risks of minorities' rights being threatened and revoked.

The president chooses the members of the supreme court who hold lifelong positions and whose legal decisions have decades-long ramifications. Trump picked 3 of the 11 current members who currently hold a Republican majority. It was that supreme court that overturned Roe V Wade and that decision is harming thousands of people today in multiple states.

Biden already nominated one SCOTUS, and in his next term he could appoint 1-2 more Democratic members who would work to protect rather than erode American rights.

The Trump administration was lethal for thousands of Americans for a multitude of reasons, including his failure to properly respond to and then proceeded to politicize the COVID-19 pandemic.

As awful as it sounds, as hard as it is to believe in the moment, ESPECIALLY with the atrocities Biden is perpetuating in Palestine right now, don't believe for a moment that this genocide would be even slightly less cruel under Trump. The difference is Trump's cruelties would extend to Americans as well— especially immigrants.

The point I'm making is the only ethical choice for this election is to vote for Biden, but at the same time that vote is not the same as condoning his actions. Don't let voting be the end all for political action, and I hope you understand why this choice is necessary in an unfair voting system. Please participate in your local elections, Call your representatives. Continue demanding a permanent ceasefire and an end of Israel's occupation over Palestine. And please keep helping Palestinians.

I think it's quite wild to say people domestically haven't been dying under Biden. Hundreds of thousands disabled people have died during the Biden presidency due to covid. I myself only got covid because people around my family stopped masking. Even some of my family members stopped masking because of the CDC thing. There have been countless other things that I'm too tired to list as well that directly contributed to the death of people.

I'm sorry I don't know why you sent this I'm not going to change my mind. I'm not voting for the man that killed people I know and lied to our faces about it.

[evilwickedme]

It's so clear to me that so many so called "anti Zionists" - especially the non Palestinian goyim - have no idea how the Israeli election system works, and how bibi remains in power, and why we had five elections in like, three years, despite elections supposedly being every four years - because he couldn't keep a government stable enough to stay in power. Bibi netanyahu is MASSIVELY unpopular, and his approval rate has tanked even more since the war started, even among likud voters, the people who vote for HIS party (although their approval rates ranked less than the rest of the population). He has an extreme right wing government because if he didn't cooperate with right wing extremists and haredim he straight up wouldn't have the majority he needs to be our prime minister in the first place. He's been on trial for corruption for years at this point, and tried to completely restructure the judicial system just to avoid prison - leading to nearly a full year of protests until Oct 7. Luckily it didn't end up passing.

If elections were held at any point in the last five months since this war started, not only would he not be PM, we'd straight up have a center-left government. My recent transformation into a Yair Golan stan account is a joke but also 100% real - according to polls from the last three months or so, if he does what he's campaigning to do, leading a combined avoda and meretz party, he'd get enough votes to have an actual influential left wing party in the government for the first time in decades. An unbelievable amount of Israelis are calling for bibi to resign, many of them not calling for it to happen after the war ends, but right now.

I am sourcing this information from polls conducted by channels 11 (kan), 12, and 13, as well as by the Israeli democracy foundation, all but one of our important news channels - channel 14, the last channel, is our equivalent of fox news, and despite their numbers often being extremely different due to what is in my opinion biased reporting and flawed methodology, even they at times have had to admit that gantz is currently leading in the polls.

(Disclaimer that I work for a company that provides subtitles for channel 13, but i do not directly work for channel 13. Channel 13 leans mostly center left, and employs several (self identified) Arab Israelis in front of the camera, including Lucy Aharish, who makes considerable effort to bring Palestinian and Bedouin perspectives to her show. It also employs at least one massive racist though.)

I write this post because I keep seeing an unsourced claim by goyim that there's a poll showing a high rate of approval - 88%! - of the destruction and/or deaths Israel and the IDF are causing in Gaza. I went down a rabbit hole and simply couldn't find a poll asking about approval of deaths or destruction, although maybe I was looking up the wrong keywords? As a result I have just... So many questions. Because with the information I have from trustworthy local news sources, from the news channels I mentioned above and papers such as yediot aharonot/ynet and Haaretz, it doesn't fit with current public opinion, including many recent protests for more efforts towards a ceasefire. So my questions are thus -

Who conducted this poll? Was it a think tank, a government agency, a paper, a news channel? If so, which one? Are they left leaning, right leaning? Was it conducted by an Israeli or foreign institution?

Who did they ask? Was it a sample of likud voters; all Israeli adults; did they include only Jewish Israelis or also Arab citizens (approx. 1.5 million out of our 8 million population), Bedouins, and other minorities?

When was the poll conducted? Was it in October, immediately after the Oct 7 massacre, before the death toll in Gaza grew? Was it conducted more recently?

What, exactly, did they ask? Did they ask about destruction in general, or about the death toll in particular? Did they ask about the attempts to rescue hostages with military means, or all military actions? Did they ask about the number of Hamas operatives dead, about their estimated ratio of Hamas to civilians, about the total deaths?

What was the size of the pool surveyed? Was it conducted on a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand people?

Because without this information, that one, sole statistic is essentially useless. As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Always look at the source and ask: who asked the questions, who got asked, and what the questions were.

More specific statistics and sources under the cut.

I did find one survey by the Israel democracy foundation that asked if the IDF should take the Gazan suffering into account - an entirely different question, although it did still have a horrific 89% Jewish Israelis and 14% Arab Israelis and Palestinian citizens who said they shouldn't. That said, the pool they were drawing from was not very large - 500 of the interviews were conducted in Hebrew, 100 were conducted in Arabic. Also, of the people who supposedly said that they shouldn't, a little more than half of both populations said they should "somewhat" take it into account - that is, they didn't say they shouldn't take it into account at all, just not make it their first priority. This survey was conducted mid December.

In another survey by the same source with a slight larger sample size (a little over 600 Jewish Israelis and a little over 150 Arab Israelis), an insanely low 15% still wanted Bibi to be the PM, with the only candidate who received more than 6.5% being the center candidate Benny Gantz, who historically has tried to cooperate with center and left parties, with a whopping 23% of the votes. The survey included 10 candidates, as well as five other non candidate options. 4% voted "just not Bibi", and an actually insane 30.5% voted they were undecided. Only a quarter of those surveyed believed Bibi would manage to maintain a coalition after the war, a number that includes more extreme right wing voters, and only the ultra Orthodox haredi population had a majority of people (60%) who believed he can. This survey was conducted in January.

The channel 13 news survey from early March - barely over a week ago! - covered more specifically which parties would manage to get into the government and how many seats they would get, as under a certain amount of votes you simply do not get seats. Not all seats get into a coalition. According to their poll, the amount of seats the likud would get is halved, from 32 to 17, while gantz's the state camp would grow from 12 to 39. While currently meretz gets 4 seats and haavodah do not get enough votes to get a seat at the table so to speak, a combined haavodah and meretz under Yair Golan gets 9 mandates. In total, the right wing only get 47 mandates, well short of the amount of mandates necessary to create a government.

Channel 12's corresponding poll from January shows 35 mandates for gantz, and bibi had 18 mandates. Channel 11, in the same month, gave gantz 33 mandates and bibi 20.

I also sources an English Jerusalem post article which reports on channel 14's polls; jpost is a right wing biased paper, and yet even they report 36 mandates for gantz and 18 for bibi as of February.

Sources

The Israel democracy institute: 1 (English), 2 (Hebrew), 3 (Hebrew)

Haaretz: 1 (English) (paywalled)

Channel 13: 1 (Hebrew)

Ma'ariv: 1 (Hebrew) (reporting on channel 12)

Podcast which summarizes the above article: 1 (English) (includes transcript)

Kan 11: 1 (Hebrew)

Jpost: 1 (Hebrew)

#gail speaks #i/p #israel hamas war #jew tag #bibi netanyahu #benny gantz #yair golan posting #yair golan #jumblr

[lesspopped]

since I’ve spoken to a few different people who were disappointed by the outcome of the elections, especially people who haven’t voted in many elections previously, and so were surprised to hear this: y’all, this election actually went shockingly well for the democratic party. as a rule, the sitting president’s party does not do well in midterms, especially the first midterm after that president is elected. this is the best a sitting president’s party has done in the midterm in twenty years. the last time it went this well for the sitting president’s party was 2002, when the republicans were still riding the post-9/11 jingoism wave. in the first midterm after obama was elected, the democratic party lost 63 house seats; last I checked the nyt's final projection for them to lose this time was somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.

yes, it sucks that we’re likely losing the house and it sucks that the senate is still up in the air and it super sucks that the democrats have basically given up on bothering to campaign in florida. but losing the house was always likely and we have not lost it by nearly as much as we were predicted to, and honestly, without a filibuster-proof majority, even having both chambers of congress isn’t a guarantee of being able to get much done there. there are definitely disappointments, but this is nowhere near a disaster. ultimately, from what I can tell, there are a lot more republicans disappointed by this election than democrats, because this was supposed to be a massive blowout for the republicans and it very much has not been. like, at all. 

again I am not saying there are not things to be disappointed by, and it sucks immeasurably that we have to take “this didn’t go as badly as it could have” as a victory, but also, it really, really is a victory. at the very least, it’s not a flat-out defeat, and there are a lot of reasons not to feel despair. the smaller, state-level victories are not as flashy and dramatic as the higher-profile ones like the house or senate, but they’re extremely important, and will make a huge difference in a lot of people’s lives — in many cases a greater difference, day-to-day, than the senate or house elections will make. it’s really important not to lose sight of these wins.

(personally, what was really keeping me up at night was a) abortion referendums and b) the number of 2020 election deniers who were running for state- or local-level seats that would have put them in the position of being in charge of election administration in 2024 and beyond, making it much easier for them to rig future elections. well, republicans have pretty soundly gotten their asses handed to them on both counts, which is fan-fucking-tastic. like I said, these are not necessarily the things that get a lot of attention on the national level, but they’re so, so important and will make a big difference for a lot of people in the coming years.)

#politics

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

please tell us more about your mad theory about the tories getting rid of Sunak?

So the Tories currently have two (2) major problems.

Problem the first: they are about to lose power as soon as the GE rolls around, which it must do by January 2025 at the absolute latest. And the country is baying for one sooner.

This is very much preoccupying their minds at the minute. The rich and powerful will never willingly let you vote away their wealth and power, and to put this into perspective, the Tory party has ruled this country either jointly or alone for over a decade at this point. One of David Cameron's strategies as leader was to focus on recruitment of young and exciting diverse Tories into the party, which is how we got such stellar entries as Liz Truss and Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. These are MPs, therefore, who have never known political life outside of being on the winning side. They are seeing the end of the gravy train in sight, and they are taking it as well as you'd expect.

This is why the infighting is so rife (partly; bear with). The main thing they care about right now is making the party electable again, and fast.

But...

Problem the second: like all good fascist dictators, when Boris Johnson came to power, he fired everyone who said anything bad about him for disloyalty, and promoted all his personal friends. This is how we got such stellar entries as Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees Mogg and Michael Fabricant. But THAT'S an issue because saying bad things about BJ is basically what intelligent people did, because the man was a useless blundering oaf who killed horrifying numbers of his own electorate via the world's second worst mismanagement of a global pandemic. So removing anyone who criticised him meant, in very real terms, removing the only Tories with half a brain who were even a fraction capable of doing joined up thinking required to run a country. Like, fuck every Tory with a cactus, obviously, but they did at least used to have competent, high calibre politicians, however evil and grotesque they were. David Cameron should die in a cesspit, but he was capable of remembering to put the bins out (before wage cutting the refuse collectors).

And therein lies the real problem: okay, BJ is gone, the party is in ruin, they're staring down the barrel of the most humiliating election defeat in history. They need someone competent that they all like who can take the reins and make people like them again.

But who's left?

There's no one. There's no one left. Not just because the remaining Tories are too low calibre to lead; they're too low calibre to even be able to pick someone without shrieking like cliquey little harridans on the playground about how the wrong in-group got in. Half of them are still BJ loyalists who hate anyone who criticise The Great Brexit Leader. The other half hate BJ for managing to make everyone hate the Tories so much that they're in this mess. Both halves are willing to sabotage the chosen leader of the other, locked in a battle of mutually assured destruction.

So how does Sunak fit into this?

He's unpopular in the party to a truly staggering degree, and not much better in the eyes of the public. He's tried to take a centrist stance on BJ, but that's actually just pissed off both sides. He did manage to stabilise the economy somewhat after the appalling mess Liz Truss threw it into, but he hasn't actually fixed it - we're still mid-cost of living crisis, we're still inexplicably not rich after Brexit like Boris prommied, inflation is still at an all time high as public services crash. The public hates him.

And he hasn't made the public stop hating the Tories. That petition calling for a GE is great, because it won't happen - BUT, it does force the issue to be debated in Parliament with opposition parties getting to stick the boot in, which means the humiliation continues. The Tories are starting to get desperate again.

And because this lot of Tories are, as mentioned, utterly terrible low-calibre political idiots, their response to this pressure has for the last four years been to oust the leader and get another.

And the first letters of no confidence have been sent into the 1922 Committee already. The devil moves fast, but knuckle dragging Tories with a fifth of a braincell each move faster.

And thanks to the absolute fucking state of them all... I cannot believe I'm saying these words, but genuinely the best person they have left who could possibly do the job is, of all fucking people, Michael Fucking Gove, and it won't even be him because he was mean to Boris once.

So yeah. I reckon Sunak may be out in six months. Fuck knows who we get instead. Probably Penny Mordaunt.

#asks #politik