They aren’t here for regime change they are here for PR points and to distract from domestic problems.

A) They aren’t going to ever tell you it’s time because your needs never meant anything to them

B) There will be no weapons air dropped to you because your revolution is a non-goal for them.

C) The remaining military is still going to be mostly alive and capable of machine gunning you down again

D) The new leader will be as bad as the old in fact it will probably be one of his deputies who have already been largely running the show

This would be impossible to hold we would lose it the second we stopped dumping hundreds of billions per year and would never own anywhere but islands of fascism where our troops were concentrated.

We would suffer continuous losses and the whole world except Russia and China would turn against us.

We would probably suffer economic collapse as other countries dropped dollars and exchange rates shifted against us while war creates a need for tax money which can only be raised by taxes which are unpopular or tariffs which further destroy trade.

If Congress doesn’t get behind attacking Canada Trump could only fund it by misappropriating money or raising tariffs.

Ultimately we lose Canada and end up in the next great depression

Actually in most of western europe its half think he’s their enemy 40 some percent think he gives zero fucks either way and only 7-9% think he’s on their side.

This normally isn’t a thing.

They created the cost with their actions. The government should take every penny of value down to the CEOS kids toys and then foot any costs not paid for.

The didn’t get to vote on it

Notably hamas being essentially the government there includes clerks cooks janitors, plumbers.

Kinda hard to personally blow up the building where bob the plumber sleeps killing him his kids and 10 other folks and claim to have hit any military targets.

Governments often claim to kill a military target when they kill a prime age male even without realistically identifying a combatant especially where bombing is used.

It’s probably closer to 80-90% civilians

It is fundamentally impossible for Gazans to relocate in the numbers required to avoid mass death. Remainder that this was one of the most populated areas in the world with at least 2 million people in 2024. None of their neighbors want ANY refugees and will not accept 2M individually or as a group and it would remain a humanitarian crisis in which many would die even if they were welcomed with open arms.

There is only 2 choices. Cessation of hostility and genocide.

Most Jewish people are pro Israel and amongst those who are most religious or Orthodox most rises to an overwhelming majority.

This isn’t pretending an ethic group has negative characteristics from a stereotype this is acknowledging an actual view most in a group have.

Most Americans are pro Christianity. Even if you view Christianity negatively it’s ok to say Americans are infatuated with the trappings if not the actual virtues of Christianity because it’s true even if this isn’t true of every single one of us.

To my understanding Jew is not perjorative but could be in context eg if offense is obviously intended or if mention of ethnicity or religion is otherwise irrelevant.

I’m aware that different states have different laws but in no state does possession of a weapon magically obviate all claims of self defense against an unarmed person.because possession of a weapon in no way obviates the risk to you that you are attempting to ameliorate by killing the fucker.

EG if someone broke into your home to rape and murder you you aren’t going to jail for stabbing them with a kitchen knife. If you disagree pick a specific state where you think the law works like that and I’ll be happy to look at the relevant info.

Unsafe doesn’t mean 100 incidence of death it means greater than tolerance levels of risk.

Some place not being safe is defined as greater than n rate of insert list of bad things per capita.

For most folks 100 in 100k murdered annually is pretty unsafe whereas 5 is pretty safe.

But even if it were 1000 in 100k the other 99k still living could argue its not that bad!

You basically can’t go to almost any population center without what the civilized world considers unacceptable risk whereas I can stroll through the “bad” part of my city at 2AM and mostly risk seeing gross people doing drugs.

Mexico is objectively unsafe. Some parts of states are too like st Louis

Sort of. They would be liable to alert on people who HAD consumed drugs earlier or had been around people that had consumed drugs. Furthermore it has been shown in a scientific study that dogs alert in part based on their owners suspicion even when not deliberately signaled to do so and since such suspicion is liable to fall on minorities just serves to justify the dogs masters pre-existing judgement.

White people and men believed that electing a white man who said that it was ok to privilege white men was ok.

Religious and conservatives saw him appointing judges doing their will.

Many believed he would cut their taxes and these tax cuts would stimulate the economy.

People don’t always vote for things they told you they voted for. People act shocked that we elected a brainless piece of human filth. The filth told them he would give them things they want. People didn’t vote for or against gaza on average they just don’t actually care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.