aalvare2

She has promised to always support Israel and aid it in its defense. It's cut and dry, she will posture for a ceasefire while supporting genocide.

Paying lip-service to the support of Israel’s defense is not equivalent to personally supporting genocide. You could argue that it’s practically the same thing if she ultimately continues to arm Israel and Israel continues to attack Gaza, but I don’t think the blame should be placed on her, it should be placed principally on Israel, next on a Congress that apportions funds for Israel.

During FDR's campaign, coming off of the Great Depression, the Ruling Class feared a US October Revolution like what happened in the USSR, so the US became a Social Democracy for a time. Leftward movement comes from fear from the Ruling Class.

My original claim was that if progressives split the vote, and the GOP wins as a result, that’ll shift the party right.

This isn’t a counter-example to that, IMO it’s an example that the worse the economy is for the working class, the harder the working class swings politics left, which I would agree with. That said, the Great Depression was also a much worse economic period.

I think an example in favor of what I’m talking about is the 2000 election. Bush won Florida by less than 1000 votes, but 100k votes were cast for the socialist candidate, most of which would’ve otherwise gone to Gore. The result was Bush not only winning in 2000, but again in 04. And in 08 we get someone who appealed moderates as much as he did to progressives.

My point was not. My point was that pulling out of NATO is the single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do. You're shifting it back to Russia.

I’m not shifting the entire conversation back to Russia, just this portion of it, because that’s where this portion started, and your point about dissolving NATO being an anti-imperalist move contradicts my take that removing the check against Russia is a pro-imperialist move. Also I don’t see how disbanding NATO would be “the single great act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do“, feel free to elaborate.

In other words, NATO expansionism and encirclement of Russia despite Russia warning against it caused it. NATO was formed by Anticommunists against the USSR, and retained its anti-Russia purpose even after the dissolution of the USSR. Had NATO not expanded against Russia's wishes, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.

Russia could have simply…not invaded Ukraine? NATO is just a defensive alliance, it getting bigger doesn’t put Russia in danger unless Russia has imperialistic tendencies.

You could argue that Russia feared that NATO getting bigger meant that the individual countries get bigger, meaning they may choose to attack Russia themselves with larger power. But Russia could use that as an excuse to shore up its own alliances and continue building its own military (both actions taken in case of Russian invasion), not to invade a non-NATO country for no other reason?

In an alternate reality, not too different from ours, this guy is gonna be the next president.

Copied from my other reply:

I’m sorry, but “saying that she’d continue to arm Israel”, which would literally be her job if Congress apportions funds for her to arm Israel, is not equivalent to “promising to give Israel bombs”. The keyword “promise”, to me, suggests she would do anything her power to aid Israel, even if she doesn’t have to. I’ll accept any constructive criticism of this take, but not a strawmanning that strips away the context that it’s literally the law to do what Congress says in this case.

She has promised to always keep sending Israel bombs. She can promise to sanction Israel if she wants to regain votes she is shedding by promising to continue genocide.

She has not promised to “keep sending Israel bombs”. She has said that she would continue to arm Israel, but a) she would have to support Israel so far as Congress continues to apportion aid to Israel, and b) she has also repeatedly stated that she wants a 2-state solution and to enact a ceasefire.

Jill Stein's platform is a lot better than the Democrats, votes for her pull the DNC to the left.

I disagree with this. You’d think that voting for Jill Stein would pressure the DNC to go further left, but if Trump wins then it sends the message that the progressive left can’t be trusted to vote for them, so they’ll go back to appealing to moderates. So the gains created by giving Sanders/AOC-types more leverage in the party and nominating Tim Walz for VP (the most progressive pick out of everyone considered) would be lost.

If Trump wins, he will indeed continue the genocide started under the Democrats, but so would Kamala.

I believe the assault on Palestine would be accelerated under Trump. You can call it lip service if you want, but at least Kamala has repeatedly called for a 2-state solution, meaning she’d continue to do the bare minimum req’d by Congress as far as supporting Israel would be concerned. Trump has never supported a 2-state solution, verbally or otherwise - the guy even moved the Israel embassy into Jerusalem, against the suggestion of virtually all his foreign aid experts. He has more interest in stoking this conflict than not.

For what it's worth, disbanding NATO is the single greatest thing any American President could do for the Global South, taking a firm stand against Imperialism.

I disagree very, very strongly. I don’t see how this “takes a firm stance against imperialism” because Russia is 100% the aggressor of that conflict. They had no legitimate reason to cross into Ukraine’s border and open fire, other than to further imperialistic ambition. The whole point of NATO is to discourage that ambition.

Kamala isn’t president yet. You can call on her to sanction Israel as president, without also pushing another candidate.

Jill Stein’s only practical role in this election is as a presidential spoiler benefitting Trump, and if Trump wins then Palestine is really truly f’d anyway.

It also doesn’t help that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for the disbandment of NATO and the disruption of Ukraine aid. Those are extreme positions that have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, and many of those interested in voting for her are likely not even aware of those stances.

I second the request for a citation.

Feel free to refute this, but here’s an article I found that suggests there’s little evidence that Head and Shoulders is bad for your hair - at least the ones that aren’t Clinical Strength.

Minor anecdote: I used to have severe dandruff, then I started using Aveeno’s Apple Cider Vinegar products and that helped a LOT, but now I use the ACV H&S and I haven’t had any real complaints since the switch.

Yeah , on top of how ad-infested and vague the article is and on top of the discussion I’ve seen about this paper elsewhere, it looks like at least one of the authors, Adrian David Cheok, doesn’t have any physics training according to his ORCID bio or his his wikipedia page, but has dabbled in AI according to the latter.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just some AI schlock.

This seems misleading. 28% is less than Biden’s 39.6% tax proposal for 2025, but still greater than the 20% tax we have now. More importantly, this proposal would just be a request - Congress can make whatever amendments they want.

I could be wrong and would accept evidence to the contrary, but I don’t think Congress was going to pass Biden’s 40% proposal for FY25, anyway, in which case 28% would be a compromise in the right direction.

You should ask this guy why he’s pushing the Green Party nominee, aka the pro-environmental policy nominee, despite indicating in other threads that he doesn’t care if Trump wins, aka the anti-environmental policy nominee.

I asked him that, then he started accusing me of bullying him and blocked me.