394
Israel will not stop war until Palestinians displaced from Gaza and Syria partitioned, minister says
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
394 points (99.0% liked)
World News
46408 readers
2362 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Polls have been close not only wildly inaccurate but so incredibly spread out that you could find a few to support literally anyone position after the fact.
That's why it's important to consider how the questions are framed, not disregard polling. And no, the polling methodology used is not wildly inaccurate, what a baseless claim to try to disregard the actual articles.
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats' Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are 'Why Trump Beat Harris'
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
It is very very hard to predict who is going to win even when elections that aren't all that close. Asking people how they would behave especially people who didn't even bother to vote is fraught. People who aren't happy about something are apt to say they would do something about it but they showed more about how motivated they are by not even bothering to show up in actual reality. I think anyone who tells you if you did this they would have voted for you is quite frankly full of shit.
White people voted for Trump because they believed they would be privileged. Men voted for him because they believed they would be privileged. Conservatives voted for him because he would appoint conservative judges Financially ignorant people voted for him because he would cut their taxes and encourage business. Republican's voted for him because him being a Republican was far more important than any other factor. Most people who call themselves independent flatter themselves by saying so and in fact vote Red or Blue 95-99% of the time. Those who lean red were never going to vote for a non-white women running under the blue ticket.
None of these factors had anything to do with Israel or Gaza. People in America are selfish and self centered they were never going to vote differently based on Gaza.
Way to ignore both articles that show just how much more support Harris would have gotten by standing by an arms embargo, which is both the popular and morally correct position to have.
Yeah, people in America are selfish. That doesn't change the reality that they recognize those progressive policies are to their own benefit. If you ignore the material conditions of America and have no material analysis of the situation, it's not possible to recognize the root cause of voter apathy and populism, let alone the differences between left populism and right populism
People saying that support when you present them with a moral issue isn't the same thing as them actually turning up to vote. People have all sorts of opinions about what they ought to do and if you ask them if they intend to exercise, floss their teeth, and support the little chidrens in Africa. This doesn't mean they will be doing ANYTHING of note given a chance.
Track actual attendance at gym, check their teeth, and ask for receipts for their donations to feed the starving kids. You'll find that most of them fell short.
I don't care about your opinions. You have nothing to refute the actual articles, you just want to be right regardless of the significant amount of evidence that show you're wrong about public support for a weapons embargo to stop a fucking genocide
I don't think you can show via a survey after the fact that someone would have voted differently. I believe the entire idea is nonsense.
The 34 polls are throughout the campaign, it's very clear you didn't even bother opening the link, let alone look at the data.
This proves more people say they would support someone who says they will do something that aligns with what people say they support. It doesn't mean the person actually shows up. Someone put on the spot may give you the answer you want and still not show up. I don't think categorically you can prove the kind of thing you want to prove. If polls were remotely accurate we would be talking about president Hillary Clinton
Categorically Americans don't give a fuck about what is happening to people in other countries. The same group most likely to say they do young people are the one that is least likely to even show up to spend 15 minutes voting. You can keep pretending that this shows what you think it shows but I will continue thinking that it shows people tell you the right answer when you put them on the spot.
The polls are accurate. I have no interest in your personal belief, that doesn't change the reality of the evidence.
When in the last 9 years or so have the polls been accurate enough to make this statement? The stated margin for error is usually big enough to go either way and the actual accuracy has been less than one would suppose from the margin of error.
You can find the margin of error in all the polls linked, you can even find the methodology of each polling organization on their respective sites. Not only are the margin of errors small, the reality of the significance of the polls are reinforced by the sheer amount, done by multiple organizations, all in the same ballpark. You have no basis for discrediting these polls, which is evident by your lack of engagement with the source material.
I'm not going to individually go over 34 polls so lets pick the first arbitrarily
https://split-ticket.org/2024/07/10/we-polled-the-nation-heres-what-we-found/?ref=use-these-numbers.ghost.io
First one is about Biden it shows 13% going to third parties and 6% I don't know. That is interesting but useless in determining anything of note. It's also pretty wrong. More people always SAY they are going to vote third party than actually do. They lie to polls or to themselves.
Next we have Harris v Trump with 8% undecided equally useless for determining our counterfactual.
Next we have a question wherein they are arbitrarily asked if they would support "A candidate who" not a particular person but a arbitrary person who holds a given view. We learn that based on what people SAY there are always enough undecided to swing it either way but more people say they would vote for a democrat who holds those views. Now at last we have something interesting right well...
The problem is that something which adds blue voters in a blue state or too few to swing a red state is worth nothing in the final analysis. We know that some people say they would vote not for a actual candidate but for or against an imaginary hypothetical candidate but not if these gains would result in a single EC vote even if 100% true. The fact that again its a hypothetical person instead of the actual folks that people have strong feelings about is again also problematic.
In the end I'm no more convinced than I started. I'm not doing this 33 more to prove that the rest is equally trash because you wasted my time by not collecting a singular example instead of a huge list of bullshit.
You didn't even read the correct part of the first poll, so I'm not surprised by your 'conclusion.' Here's data from 4 more of the 34 I already had quoted out 6 months ago.
Quotes
Quotes
Quotes
Quotes