• 5 Posts
  • 115 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 22nd, 2023

help-circle













  • Theoretically, sure, it’s possible. I think what’s more likely to happen if Trump fucks up is that Israel will just keep up the attack maybe with slightly less support. It’s not like they are a U.S. State that has to abide by a SCOTUS decision; they are (for good and bad) their own sovereign nation and could WOULD MOST LIKELY make the choice to continue their abhorrent actions, regardless of whatever Trump himself might do.

    The state of Israel is not a “puppet” of the U.S., only able to make a movement when given a command from the White House; it is closer to Frankenstein’s Monster, fully capable of making its own decisions, and sometimes they choose to do evil things (regardless of how ‘justified’ they tell themselves it is). It’s not a 1-to-1 comparison, but I think it’s a better way to understand the whole situation


  • I recognize your anger, I am also distraught about Palestine and I wish we had a candidate who was adamant about not giving more aid to Israel. I’m not saying you need to give up on your ideals nor am I telling you to shut up about it. But let’s be real here, as much as we hate it, we only have 2 choices in November, and one of them will cause much MUCH more damage to Palestinians, Americans, and quite possibly the entire globe if he gets elected. We CANNOT let Trump win, so again, as much as I don’t like many of Kamala’s stances, she is undeniably receiving my vote


  • In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played


  • In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played