I would do the Randy Savage mod if you have a link
China may start a war over Taiwan, but that would be the only thing really that would realistically lead in that direction, and the the West would probably do a Ukraine where they just supply aid, not actually get involved in the fighting. If we were ready to fight on behalf of Taiwan we'd be recognizing them as a country and sending high profile diplomatic visits regularly etc.
More or less all of the CCPs geopolitical and economic efforts would be undone by a war, the world already hates the CCP and it's not going to make them more likable if they start a war. Plus there's no real benefit to the west. It's not like anyone is looking to occupy China, the CCP knows this they just use the idea as propaganda for their own people.
Conservativism is, by its nature, tribal. The two can't be separated.
The problem is, the Abrahamic religions will always seed new fundementalists because, regardless of how people with a modern mindset might interpret it as allegory etc. to make it more palletable, the texts were intended to be read and believed literally. They were written by people in the bronze age, based on made up stories that go who knows how far back.
It's what makes them so toxic, the belief virus of fundementalism is always there in a latent state waiting to be activated by some new context (usually a particularly charismatic leader or radical change in society).
You see a great example with the current pope -- people thought from his language of "acceptance" towards lgbt people that the church was becoming more progressive, but then recently you see him using slurs that pretty clearly contradict that sentiment, because he understands the text is unequivocally anti-lgbt. The Abrahamic religions will always betray people in this way.
If religion wasn't behind some of the worst atrocities on the planet you might have a point, but the largest religions also are the ones that tend to be fundementally intolerant.
Once an irrational belief in magical spirits starts effecting other people and how our society is run that's when it becomes something people actively need to be convinced not to believe. They need to cope with reality, not hide from it.
No, you're just illustrating what I'm talking about. How, specifically, do you envision Donald Trump being worse on this genocide than no strings attached support that Biden has given?
This lesser of two evils shit isn't working because Biden is showing himself to just be literally out and out evil. You guys need to come to terms with what you're supporting here, it's time to acknowledge how far to the right you've had to go to be trying to scare people into voting for your candidate with "nuances of genocide".
Netanyahu pretty obviously is not being held back by Joe "give them multiple billions in genocide aid" Biden.
Putin, yeah, probably.
Sounds like a Republican.
People keep claiming this, but never actually specify how Trump could possibly be worse than full-on support for genocide. Biden is 100% for the genocide, he has proved this and has put zero restrictions or conditions on Israel's far-right regime.
What we're seeing in Gaza under Biden will be the exact same thing we see under Trump.
This is not the argument neolibs want to be making at this time.
Not going to happen while they're still taking AIPAC money, that shit is toxic to actual turn-out for Dems at this point.
Yes, but he's also shown himself willing to say anything to get support and votes. He had a lot of big progressive talk during his campaign when he was against Sanders, but then dropped that facade pretty much within the first few months and started giving out corporate handjobs.
I'll take anyone who isn't a corporate careerist at this point. The people sitting on the supreme court shouldn't be expecting to leverage it to make an exhorbitant amount of money.
It's wild to think he's willing to potentially lose to a literal felon just to protect a genocidal right-wing zealot.
It would be the most final indictment of neoliberalism one could imagine.
Israel has been the one consistently slowing or completely stopping aid since the beginning. This is not a question, Egypt is not the problem here.
Since Israel seized control of the Gazan side of the Rafah crossing on May 7, aid has been blocked, with supplies piling up in Egypt and the Strip teetering close to famine.
[CNN]
Fighting and bombardment continued on the outskirts of the southern Gaza city of Rafah as Israel said the key Kerem Shalom crossing had reopened for aid. [...] The US said that while the crossing was open again, aid could not get through "because of logistical and security concerns" on the ground.
The UN had expressed alarm on Tuesday over what it called Israel's "choking-off" of Gaza's two main aid arteries, after Israeli troops took full control of the Palestinian side of the nearby Rafah crossing with Egypt.
[BBC]
This has been Israel's story since this latest stage of the genocide began back after Oct. 7. They stop tents getting through because "tent poles can be used as weapons".
And just in case people have forgotten, this is what Gaza looks like. You're trying to tell me that it's the Egyptians who are blocking aid? Israel is supposedly this great ally to the West, why are they not letting the needed aid through any of the other three borders they control completely? Having to go through Egypt or build a fucking entire port would indicate that Israel is entirely uncooperative with western aid efforts. Air dropping aid is the kind of thing we've done historically when there is enemy territory preventing us driving it in by land.
Zionists need to understand that there is no hiding what Israel has been doing to Palestinians any longer, the old deflections simply do not work. The genie is out of the bottle.
Yes. Supporting or not supporting genocide is about morality.
No. I won't be convinced to vote for any candidate who supports genocide. Ever. For moral reasons, and because voting for that candidate would mean I'm communicating that support for genocide is politically viable for me. I disagree that genocide support should be politically viable.
You may be ok with Democrats supporting genocide, that's your call. You can call it pragmatism if you want. It's still genocide, and you still support it by going out and voting for a politician who supports it.
No, it's Israel that has been closing the crossings.
Maybe not, but it still sets a nice precedent that there is no magical spall-trap that will be spring if we convict a former president of crimes.
Now it just needs to be done for something he did in office.
