The vast majority of Americans believe democracy, despite its problems, is the best system of government. But polling shows that far fewer younger voters agree.
The nationwide poll conducted in mid-March by Florida Atlantic University found 73% of voters agree that “Democracy may have problems, but it is the best system of government,” including 50% who strongly agree. Just 13% disagree.
But the youngest group of voters, those from 18 to 35, felt much differently.
Slightly more than half — 53% — agreed it’s the best system of government. Just 15% strongly agree while a quarter — 25% — disagreed.
…
People who said they plan to vote for former President Donald Trump, the presumed Republican nominee, in November were 22 percentage points less likely to agree that democracy is the best system of government than people who said they plan to vote for President Joe Biden.
Among Biden voters, 85% agree democracy is the best form of government even though it may have problems, 6% disagree, and 10% don’t agree or disagree.
Among Trump voters, 63% agree, 18% disagree, 19% don’t agree or disagree.
First part was unexpected but second part was not. Other highlight from the article was that there was no major difference by gender with men in the survey polling higher than women about their support of democracy.
Countries can either choose their own leaders, or they cannot. If they cannot, they are usually fucked. Sometimes severely fucked. And it is very hard to fix things.
@HandsHurtLoL and the other mods, for starters, thank you for your time.
I am trying to understand how the rules are related to the removal of posts in this magazine. I ask this because I have had so far 3 articles that have been removed but to my understanding they where totally compliant with this magazine's intentions and rules. I only contacted you for the 3rd one, which was reinstated but I was not given any explanation for the removal. I was no exception, I saw in the mod log that explanations are rarely provided.
So may I ask, why were the following 3 articles removed in the first place? I am trying to understand the criteria of this magazine in order to comply to those and be part of the conversation.
The way you describe it I would say this post is in the news-like content.
Apart from that, in the description of this magazine it says otherwise and does not limit its content the way you describe it. It doesn't mention what the source should be, talks about the content. I will use only the part I find relevant to this conversation:
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events, analysis or other informative content related to politics both domestic and international.
So what you say just doesn't make any sense according to this community's description, rules and guidelines. Unless I'm missing something? If you have something to add, I am all ears.
He cant come up with $500~ mil, you think hes got cash one for other shit? They are going to start taking his properties, losing the election wouldnt be a thing to him. His ego is attacked from all sides, and his base doesnt care about the things hes done. Hell they cheered when he said he just wanted to be a dictator.
To me sounds like the losers are **ump himself, the hackers that are now at the back of the creditors queue, and whoever wanted to vote for this dictator wannabe.
Also he's gotten too old. He's literally becoming dysfunctional at the role and I am sure knows it.
There's also no particular consequences for the party of him stepping down from leadership at this point -- it's not like he's going to lose a bunch of senior committee assignments for the GOP, for example. It isn't like with, say, Feinstein, where even though everyone thought she needed to go, they also knew that having her leave would be a disaster because the psychopaths across the aisle would refuse to let anyone else take her seats.
I doubt age factored into his decision. He was too old ten years ago. If he had kept control of his party, he'd be clinging to power all the way to the morgue.
The consequence is that he is not a total simp for Trump the way most of the rest of the party is. Aid to Ukraine has been a very large division, to name one example.
He might be less enthusiastic than the others, but any leader who is not clearly and directly rejecting Trump as a treasonous criminal is under his thumb. SNL had the right take.
And by retiring from leadership before doing it, he's now lost his chance to do it. He supported the man until the end of his career and now his career ends. Same as Romney, it's now too late to make amends.
My point isn't that he's a good guy. I'm saying that he's not Tom Cotton, and if you don't think that's a meaningful difference, you don't pay much attention to the Senate.
It was entertaining and it wasn’t overly biased, I’ll give him props for a solid segment. But the first time I saw this shared it was presented as if he had some new enlightened view. It was mostly jokes followed by a recommended resolution that isn’t going to happen. He did what I expected from him.
I thought he presented a clever solution that could work if the political will were mustered. However, that's assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel.
that's assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel
For this statement to be valid it would be required that the concerned parties are equal. In the case of the Israel and Palestine there is a power imbalance. On one hand there is the zionist settler colonial power of Israel that is one of the strongest military forces in the world. One the other hand you have Palestine that is not even recognized as a country by the colonizers and instead of borders the colonizer has raised a wall controlling amongst other things the few entrances.
Calling out Israel for its settler colonial policies is no synonym to vilifying it.
It's more than "calling them out" when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel with intent to destroy it and genocided and ethnically cleansed Jews from Jerusalem and the West Bank while they were at it, providing justification for the very annexations they claim is a major cause of all this violence and refusal of diplomacy. Or, how Egypt pretends to be concerned for Gazans while not letting them out.
It's more than "calling them out" when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel (…)
I was not talking about Arab people, I don’t know where you got that from.
Also before the Arab league invaded Israel, (debatable but not our topic) Israel had to be created as a country. If Israel has the right to exist in West Asia, there are no valid arguments on why Palestine should not have that right as well. Are there?
For the apartheid in South Africa to end, both colonizers and colonized worked together for some sort of solution. Palestine has recognized Israel as part of the Oslo agreement. As long as Israel is not recognizing Palestine, no solution can be implemented, and the Genocide will continue.
Well, that was what Jon Stewart's plan was, to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel and guarantee safety for both. That's what I was talking about.
Keep using the term genocide incorrectly and it will soon be meaningless. It doesn't mean a lot of civilians died from collateral damage, it means intentional extermination/destruction of a protected group, which is not happening.
to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel
Let’s say that this is what he’s saying. I don’t see you mentioning what Israel has to do, so this reading cannot not be a solution cause it leaves out the responsibilities of Israel. What would you put on the top of the list of what Israel has to do? My answer to that would be that Israel has to stop bombing and starving, civilians and children, as well as recognize Palestine.
On Genocide, Israel is doing at least 3 of the 5 required for one to be called as such. And ICJ court said "plausible" so far.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I am not ignoring the first part, this is why every military action doesn't qualify under that statute but Israel is “plausibly” doing a Genocide according to ICJ. Personally I don’t need a court decision to make up my mind.
Plausible does not mean probable
see dictionary for details?
Apart from that, you haven't said anything about what are Israel’s responsibilities, and you actively ignored my specific question on the matter. We cannot talk solutions without that so I don’t see any point continuing this attempt to have a conversation.
Yes, it's clear you've made up your mind, good thing you're not a judge on the IJC misinterpreting the law.
I would say the most important thing Israel has to do is defeat Hamas, which means either destroying them or getting them to surrender, while not breaking the law. They have a responsibility to protect their own people and to honor their treaties. They're letting in 100 humanitarian aid trucks a day into Gaza on average, each one has to be searched, protesters are blocking many of them, and many humanitarian aid organizations have decided it is too dangerous to send trucks, if that is not legally sufficient they need to let in more.
I can’t believe I used to regularly watch television programming with all the clapping and cheering and whooping and laughing and awwwwwing etc.
This would have been much better with just JS speaking into a camera. Playing up for laughs really takes away some of the punch of his points. METO is an unironically good idea on the face of it.
The Problem With Jon Stewart had much more biting commentary, and you could see that he and his writers had much more creative control to speak their mind. The Daily Show just doesn't have the same bite, or the same wit, or the same strength of conviction.
His poison will live on long after he’s dead. He’s throwing fucktons of money at politicians, conservative friendly universities, conservative “News” organizations, Youtube right wing grifters, you name it.
Politics
Newest