That's okay, it will clearly be fake just like COVID and it will also be over in a few months like Elon predicted about COVID and you can fix it with horse paste and a UV light up your ass, so you don't need a mask or anything like the COVID vaccine that killed everyone who got it within a year, as predicted.
"60% growth" seems large, but there are almost 85,000,000 people in Germany, so we're talking about growing from ~0.03% to ~0.05% of the population here.
You're saying this now but they're on course to leave the left in the dust and are likely to compete with greens in terms of members and votes by election sunday next year.
They already have a presence, and are shaping the politics of Germany indirectly. As our leading conservative party (and our socialdemocatric middle -left party to some extent) makes the same error as in US as trying to cater to those extremist views. Which is frightening as fuck, as more and more fascist views are being adopted and normalized
Numbers on the far left are misleading as Die Linke is bleeding members to the BSW but the BSW is taking their sweet time handing out membership cards, double-checking every single applicant. Reportedly they have a backlog of at least 8000 applicants or such and at least 20k people generally interested. Wagenknecht is at least 70% tankie so it doesn't surprise that they're doing a vanguard thing.
Since not everyone is expected to become member of a political party, a more apt comparison would be to membership numbers (and changes in those) for other German parties.
Thanks for the link. Some big parties seem to have hundreds of thousands of members. Didn’t see much for 2024 other than:
Zu Beginn des Jahres 2024 meldeten mehrere Parteien einen starken Mitgliederzuwachs. Bündnis 90/Die Grünen berichteten von 8.000 Neumitgliedern in den ersten beiden Monaten des Jahres.
In any case, considering the political context of our times, AfD’s growth is nothing to scoff at.
In that video, he argues Houthis are shooting ships delivering weapons to Israel. However, basically all of the ships the Houthis attacked were not even heading to or from Israel. Yemen does not have any moral leg to stand on when shooting civilians peaceably trading via the sea.
We will continue to destroy those attacking civilian shipping until they are no longer able to do so.
Every target they Houthi's hit so far has been directly related to their claims. Claims that they were not related have been proven false. The recent oil tanker was British. The first big hijacked ship was israeli.
The ship you are talking about had a US flag. Do you see Russian flagged aid trucks going into to Ukraine too?
The Marshall Islands-flagged vessel is owned by US-listed Star Bulk Carriers Corp.
Massive props to the Houthi's for being consistent in their blockade and not just allowing ships through because it would strategically benefit them.
Shipping companies are extremely secretive about their ownership. They fly one flag, are owned by someone else, but also used by another company that leases them etc.
The fact is: Every ship that has been hit so far did have ties to the countries that the Houthi's are not allowing passage until their Genocide in israel is over.
Yemen
"In the late 1160s, the Yemenite ruler 'Abd-al-Nabī ibn Mahdi gave Jews a choice of conversion to Islam or martyrdom."
(893) "Under the Zaydi rule, the Jews were considered to be impure and therefore forbidden to touch a Muslim or a Muslim's food. They were obligated to humble themselves before a Muslim, to walk to the left side, and greet him first. They could not build houses higher than a Muslim's or ride a camel or horse, and when riding on a mule or a donkey, they had to sit sideways. Upon entering the Muslim quarter a Jew had to take off his foot-gear and walk barefoot. If attacked with stones or fists by youth, a Jew was not allowed to fight them. In such situations, he had the option of fleeing or seeking intervention by a merciful Muslim passerby."
Egypt
"In 1300 Sultan Al-Nasir Qalawan ordered all Jews under his rule to wear yellow headgear to isolate the Egyptian Jewish community. This law would be enforced for centuries and later amended in 1354 to force all Jews to wear a sign in addition to yellow headwear. On multiple occasions the ulema persuaded the government to close or convert synagogues. Even major places of pilgrimage for Egyptian Jews such as the Dammah Synagogue were forced to close in 1301. Jews subsequently were excluded from bath houses and were prohibited to work in the national treasury. This repression of the Jewish community would continue for centuries."
and more
"In 1656, all Jews were expelled from Isfahan and forced to convert to Islam because of a common belief that their Jewishness was impure."
"in 1661 they were allowed to revert to Judaism, although they were still required to wear a distinctive patch on their clothing."
muslims made jews wear patches before the nazis did.
Farhud (also Farhood; Arabic: الفرهود) was the pogrom or the "violent dispossession" that was carried out against the Jewish population of Baghdad, Iraq, on 1–2 June 1941, immediately following the British victory in the Anglo-Iraqi War.
THE BRITS took over Baghdad and then did Pogroms. Let's blame the Arabs!
Don't look up what European colonialism had to do with Jewish persecution either that's going to be very inconvenient.
I also clicked on the Damascus Affair 1840 link. Since you didn't, I'll help you out.
Spoiler alert: It's Europe again:
Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, Syria had been part of the Ottoman Empire (1299–1922). However, in 1831, eight years before the Tanzimat reforms, Ottoman Syria had come under the control of the Egyptian Muhammad Ali, the viceroy of Ottoman Egypt who had turned against the sultan. Muhammad Ali was said to have been influenced by European powers, particularly by France, which often attempted to safeguard and ameliorate the position of members of Catholic orders in the region.
"According to Iraqi government and British historical sources violence started when a delegation of Jewish Iraqis arrived at the Palace of Flowers (Qasr al Zuhur) to meet with the Regent Abdullah, and were attacked en route by an Iraqi Arab mob as they crossed Al Khurr Bridge. Iraqi Arab civil disorder and violence then swiftly spread to the Al Rusafa and Abu Sifyan districts, and got worse the next day when elements of the Iraqi police began joining in with the attacks upon the Jewish population, involving shops belonging to it being set on fire and a synagogue being destroyed. Many Jewish girls were gang-raped and children maimed and killed in front of their families."
"Shalom Darwish, the secretary of the Jewish community in Baghdad, testified that several days before the Farhud, the homes of Jews were marked with a red palm print ("Hamsa"), by al-Futuwa youth. Al-Sabawi also instructed Jews in Baghdad to pack suitcases and to wait to be taken to "detention camps" "for their own safety"."
"Two days before the Farhud, Yunis al-Sabawi, a government minister who proclaimed himself the governor of Baghdad, summoned Rabbi Sasson Khaduri, the community leader, and recommended to him that Jews stay in their homes for the next three days as a protective measure. He had planned for a larger massacre, preparing to broadcast a call for the Baghdad public to massacre Jews. However, the broadcast was never made since al-Sabawi was forced to flee the country."
planned and done by muslim iraqis.
not to mention all of the other massacres and anti-semitism cases i've linked.
but it's pretty clear by this point you'll justify any case of anti-semitism by arabs / muslims.
someone here didn't read.
the ones who initiated the pogrom weren't part of the british government. they were part of the coup government who took power from the british
nonetheless you're ignoring everything else i linked, like the persecution of yemenite jews.
or the persecution and discrimination against isfahan jews in iran and how they were forced to wear badges under islamic rule. centuries before the nazis.
You're right I did miss some info. It was Nazis and Britis. But the Pogrom happened under the Brits.
it's at the ramp up of WW2 and everyone wanted to control the oil. So Baghdad got a nice amount of Nazi propaganda. And their government overthrown of course.
The British also delayed their entry into Baghdad for 48 hours, which some testimonies suggest was due to having ulterior motives in allowing a clash to happen between Muslims and Jews in the city.[29]
Now the 1300 one could be true I haven't read it yet. But there I am very much noticing a theme of Europeans showing up
Many of these "Arab" ones were very much pushed on the Arab Jews by Europe.
rashid ali was an iraqi muslim, so was yunis al-sabawi, so were al-futuwa youth that marked jewish houses before the farhud and so were the iraqi mob and police that massacred and raped jews.
arabs aren't infantile human beings with no agency or responsibility.
you wrote that these things only happened in europe. iraq isn't europe.
either way i gave other examples without any kind of european presence. and there are plenty more.
I said this in a thread in World News- what will be interesting domestically now is whether or not this gives Biden a boost in the polls. It may be too late.
I think it's not too late. We have lots of time before the election. I think anyone who can make peace in the Middle East, even if it's just walking things back to a previous stalemate, has a hell of a foreign policy win.
That being said, a reset to where things were before does little for the Palestinian people as regards the original cause of this violence, and I wonder whether they will be largely forgotten or if they will continue to be important to American politics the way Ukraine has.
I am a very vocal critic of Biden for supporting the Palestinian genocide.
I have railed on him in thread after thread for enabling the slaughter of Palestinians.
I am one single person but I want to vote for Biden, this genocide is just a red line for me.
I can really only speak for the left but mark my words if Biden genuinely stops this genocide (or starts taking meaningful action to stop it) the vast majority of those voters will come back because this isn’t about rejecting Biden (have y’all even been paying attention to leftists organizing around voting “uncommitted” in the primaries as a thoughtful way to mitigate splitting the party?), this is about rejecting neoliberalism’s stranglehold over the democratic party and the absolutely horrific consequences that happen when we don’t do the work to reject the intellectually suffocating and ideologically lazy environment created by neoliberalism and centrism (that inevitably plays directly into the hands of fascists as history has shown over and over again).
Barely anybody on the left who has indicated they don’t want to vote for Biden because of his appalling lack of desire to stop the genocide of the Palestinians is going to react to Biden genuinely creating a ceasefire by not changing their position and supporting Biden over Trump. Leftists understand just as well as centrists that Trump will be worse.
What centrists can’t wrap their mind around is that if we don’t fight existentially for Palestinians now than Gaza will be considered a successful prototype by rightwing fascist western parties/governments all over the world and we will see this kind of violence become the new world order. We need to stamp this shit out now, and many of us on the left feel that the only effective leverage point is setting Biden’s ego for desiring to win the presidency as an old piece of shit against his loyalty to Israel (along with most of the Republican and Democratic parties).
Is Biden directly complicit in the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians no matter if he stops the genocide today? Of course, and he will always deserve the jeering insult “Genocide Joe” for it as a tiny penance to pay. However like the rest of y’all I understand that all US presidents are mass murderers. George Bush directly caused 1 million Iraqi citizens to die…. for what? How fucked up is it the way Obama escalated highly illegal unilateral drone strikes completely hidden from the scrutiny of the US public?
I don’t need Biden to be a good person I agree with to vote for him, I need him to come back over what is a very very very reasonable red line.
What centrists can’t wrap their mind around is that if we don’t fight existentially for Palestinians now than Gaza will be considered a successful prototype by rightwing fascist western parties/governments all over the world and we will see this kind of violence become the new world order.
Gaza isn't the prototype. In my mind that would be Xinjiang, and the "reeducation" of the Uighur community. The next example would be Ukraine (Crimea first, then Luhansk and Donetsk, and finally the whole country in 2022). Gaza is third at best.
Ukraine is a war, it is modern imperialism, an army invades a country and an another army fights to repel the invasion.
Gaza is a genocide.
Apples and oranges though both are horrendous.
If you think the Palestinian Genocide in Gaza is a war you need to unplug your brain from cable news because it is decaying your capacity to understand reality, slap yourself in the face, touch some grass, topple your world view to pieces and begin over again from the standpoint that human life, all human life, is precious and that the many are never responsible for the actions of the one.
Quick question for you. What do you think tRump will do if he wins? You sound like a troll. You bring up Obama with drone strikes even though what was it, eight months in on tRumps presidency he already surpassed Obaman's kills with drone strikes. Don't have to answer that, we already know what you're going to say, just answer this one, you a bot or troll?
Nowhere did I say I like Trump, Trump is a fascist, that isn’t hyperbole or shrill lefty talk,bit is just just brand at this point.
Biden needs to stop the Palestinian genocide so that Trump doesn’t win.
I don’t feel like this makes me a troll, maybe you disagree with me. Fine. My intentions are not disingenuous however, I want the least amount of harm to come to all humans and animals however best that may be. In my opinion, that means putting all our chips on the table now and making it clear that no matter what Trump does, Biden has no path to the presidency if he directly backs an ongoing genocide with US weapons against the majority will of the US public (by a sizable margin).
Biden never had a problem with the mass slaughter of women and children. Here's him in 1982:
Begin said Biden “rose and delivered a very impassioned speech” defending the invasion. Begin said he was shocked at how passionately Biden supported Israel’s invasion when Biden “said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.” Begin said, “I disassociated myself from these remarks,” adding: “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war. Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.” The comments were striking from Begin, who had been notorious as a leader of the Irgun, a militant group that carried out some of the worst acts of ethnic cleansing accompanying the creation of the state of Israel, including the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre.
People see a lot of immigrants coming into their area, and taking jobs. It’s not hard to see how people would draw a connection between the above statement and connect it to “that’s why I couldn’t get a job”. There’s a natural push back there.
Some companies see the influx of immigrants and realize they can get cheaper labor, and those that don’t get the job (the ones who already lived in that area) get disgruntled. It’s easy to talk some of them into joining a side that pushes back on immigration.
One of the things the far right looks at is immigration.
The left typically asks for bigger government and more social welfare programs (more taxes).
The right is typically smaller government and less social welfare programs (less taxes).
At a time when we are drowning in debt and can’t afford to buy food, have less taxes and more money in our pocket is an enticing idea. Easy to pull people to the right.
The worse the above problems get, the further to the right people go.
The further to the right they go, the less they hear from the left. Now they only see and hear one side. It becomes a vicious cycle at that point.
I'm sorry, but if you went into the debate not knowing who to vote for where the fuck have you been for eight years?
And to come out the other side saying, "yea the orange lunatic lied to my face about everything , but on the other hand Biden looked kind of tired and stumbled on his words. I think I'll vote for the convicted felon.", I mean, are we humans really just this stupid?
Yes, yes we are. I feel your pain. I said it before and I'll say it again: I would personally vote for a corpse, but it's not me you have to convince.
And if I want to be slightly more kind and less impatient, many humans may mean well, but are so woefully uneducated and uninformed that they fall prey for the mass amount of right-wing misinformation from billions of dollars injected into the media-stream.
This is what happens when you try to substitute undecided voters for your progressive base. It's always been a dumb, high-risk strategy, but it's the only way neoliberals can put off being phased out.
This is a focus-group of undecided voters -- a small population set to begin with and a sample set designed to be small, but who will clearly decide this election on the margins. You do understand how focus groups work and quite literally all campaigns use these, correct?
And finally, little data is better than no data. Nobody came away from the debate thinking Biden won; so it's not particularly a stretch to see this would hurt him with critical battleground state undecided voters.
Edit: Whew, talk about vote manipulation. I'm astounded by the complete and utter lack of substantive rebuttal.
13 "undecideds" is a poor sampling. Given one of the "undecideds" was basically between Biden or third party, they didn't control for any "never-Bideners" or "never-Trumpers".
Add on this level of ignorance:
Hands down I would vote for a liar and a convict over a person who doesn't seem to be all there mentally.
You're basically scraping the bottom of the barrel to force a clickbait headline and choosing the most bombastic quote from them to include.
You're getting downvotes because it's pretty much never the case of someone honestly and in good faith posting seemingly pro-Trump rhetoric. It always starts out nice, but devolves into the quote above like "I like the convicted felon".
Given how pivotal this moment is, I think it kind of is. Considering only 40,000 votes decided 2020, a handful of undecided voters is extremely vital. What other format would you have it in?
Focus groups aren't meant to be used for gaining an understanding of a broad swath of the population. Focus groups are used for exploratory research, concept testing, and understanding the "why" behind opinions and behaviors.
If you want to generalize trends towards large populations, you're going to need a large sample size. It's statistics that suggests that many respondents will leave you with extremely low confidence in the outcome.
For example, if you are trying to judge the voting preferences of a population of 100,000 people, you'll need 383 randomly sampled people in a survey to reach a 95% confidence interval. 13 is nowhere near the amount of people required to cover those that considered themselves "independents" before the debate.
That's not to say this tells us nothing, but it's by no means a predictive study.
*edit: I actually would say it's harmful because I think that it portrays the narrative as if it is predictive, when it's not.
Not to say this falls on deaf ears because I appreciate your actually understanding how scientific surveys work, but as you said yourself: These focus-groups of undecided voters are certainly warning-signs, and if it was flipped around, users would be up-voting this and BIden's campaign would be touting this as a great thing.
I'm all for larger studies being conducted to show the damage done; the question will then be: How will you change your perception on what needs to be done?
And golly, if only we had large sample sizes of populations comparing Donald Trump and Joe Biden in battleground swing-states. If only we could then compare those numbers to their respective numbers in 2020.... That, combined with said focus group insights, sure would be useful! /s
And that's just the start, pre-debate no less. I cannot think of a single data-point where Biden isn't doing significantly worse than his 2020 performance. National approval ratings, black/hispanic vote, voter enthusiasm, etc.
You want the reason we're down voting you and the post? Because anyone undecided is a fucking moron so we don't give a shit what they think. Same with those voting for Trump.
Because undecided swing-voters in battle-ground states will decide this election on the margins. It's Not you. It's not me. It's those stupid undecided voters that we unfortunately need to cater to, and Joe Biden lost some of those voters in the debate. If the electorate were informed and intelligent, we wouldn't have either of these candidates in the first place.
Reminder that 2020 was decided by something like 40,000 votes thanks to the electoral college.
You don't publish initial results without a significant population sample. 13 people is an abysmal sample size. You need around 10% of a population polled up until about 1,000 people because of the way the curve levels out. 100 people minimum to get something remotely confident. The confidence level of this poll is so low that the publishing of it is irresponsible and unethical.
To your argument about the other poll having only 8, that's also irresponsible. Both articles are clearly jumping to conclusions in an effort to grab views. However, that it received a more positive response is clearly indicative of the way the lemmy population leans. That's really about all you can grab from that... Well, that and people have no idea how statistical averaging works.
Again, you don't seem to understand the intent of focus groups or why they're used by political campaigns. In a way focus groups are more akin to Case Studies, which are still extremely insightful.
Besides, we already have a broader set of polling data of battleground states, and what we see here is a reflection of those wider, scientific polls that didn't bode well for Joe Biden even pre-Debate.
The mere fact that ANY random sample of undecided voters came away with these views, is downright dangerous.
Oh no, I very much do. I have a degree in psychology that requires being able to do statistical analysis for research.
You use a focus group to elicit qualitative, not quantitative, info from a targeted group in a study, not as the study itself. The issue is, it's not meant for broad populations or for quantitative studies. Even then, the data is easily skewed by biases from the group themselves, the moderator, and the interpreter and shouldn't be the only thing used.
Focus groups are meant for things like quality indicators, where you use a range of them in general analysis, which can help to triangulate where an issue is.
To properly employ a focus group, you would first need to poll an appropriate sample size of undecided voters then you target demographics within the sample to gain insight into why they answered their poll as they did.
And how, qualitatively, did these focus groups triangulate where undecided voters are on the issue of who to vote for?
To properly employ a focus group, you would first need to poll an appropriate sample size of undecided voters then you target demographics within the sample to gain insight into why they answered their poll as they did.
Isn't it quite probable they did exactly this? They certainly didn't just pull these people off the streets. They had to aggregate undecided voters to begin with, after all.
I think it's reaching for straws to suggest this isn't saying what we already recognize from polling conducted in battleground states.
Edit:
About 20% of voters say they have not picked a candidate in this year's presidential race, are leaning toward third-party options or might not vote at all, according to the most recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Reuters interviewed 15 such voters ahead of Thursday's debate, and they agreed to be interviewed again after the event about whether the debate changed their views.
Then they need to state it, because the only data they've given is that they asked a group of 13 people, one group, which is still not an adequate sample. Period.
That, right there, is why focus groups shouldn't be used for this to generalize a larger population, because the data is being misinterpreted to sell a biased story! Probability would be estimated if they actually conducted a full study. Which they clearly didn't.
And you can't use previously gathered data from battleground states to estimate results after an event. They're snapshots of an opinion at that given time. You can't use them for an event that occurred after the fact. Again, that's unethical and inappropriate.
About 20% of voters say they have not picked a candidate in this year's presidential race, are leaning toward third-party options or might not vote at all, according to the most recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Reuters interviewed 15 such voters ahead of Thursday's debate, and they agreed to be interviewed again after the event about whether the debate changed their views.
The data wasn't good before, and it doesn't take a statistician to know they're going to be as-bad or worse than before post-debate. I'll happily take that bet with you and circle back in the coming weeks as state-wide polling proves this.
Yep, if it doesn't go with lefts narrative, they just downvote it. Facts, or nothing else matters. What you just posted proves it. I've also noticed that a lot of the comments from the left are very childish, and always made me think that a lot of them are either just the young keyboard warrior type that doesn't have a job, or that their just bots or something. It seems like they have a lot of supporters online, but when's the last time you've seen someone with a Biden bumper sticker, Tshirt, flag, sign in their yard, etc.? I know I never see them
Lemmy/Reddit is full of Dems and any article that goes against the narrative of the day gets downvoted and it's the same with comments. It's not how it's supposed to work but it does
reuters.com
Active