And that was the case in 2016. It’s a known quantity.
And that was the case in 2016. It’s a known quantity.
Trump invited him to Mar a Lago as a dinner guest one night and never explained/apologised for having a Nazi over for dinner, something that would kill any politician’s career, except of course for Trump.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Sure, people will spin up their own instance and run it according to their own biases, but I don’t see Russia or Israel or whomever running bots specifically to push things one way or another like they do with Twitter, Facebook or Reddit.
Lol yes they are. They’re part owners of Twitter, which became a pro-Trump cesspool. That alone is orders of magnitude bigger than this Russian thing.
Do you think it’s big enough to bother with?
That policy doesn’t seem to apply to people living in Russia, or even travelling to North Korea.
There’s no war in the West Bank, that’s Gaza. And this is part of a pattern, the US didn’t give a shit when Rachel Corrie was murdered, or Shireen Abu Akleh (during “peacetime”).
Yeah, he didn’t do anything directly in this area last time, he just appointed the judges that would. If he can appoint even more judges, they can probably ban abortion outright for a whole generation. They know this and they’ll vote for that.
Yeah, not sure that’s an endorsement you want.
Yeah, Russia is funding all sorts of critics of the US government, some of them on the left too. Doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with Russia on everything. When RT was still allowed to broadcast in the US, people like Chris Hedges had a show on there.
Honestly, I don’t see how this indictment squares with the first amendment, especially after citizens united. If money is speech, what’s the difference between some American billionaire funding some guys that say things they agree with, and a foreign government/billionaire doing the same? If they’re banning Russian funding, why not ban Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, South China Morning Post, the BBC, etc?
If it just takes longer to get the same outcome, is it really harm reduction?
Either way, I’m not telling anyone how to vote, as the calculus depends entirely on where you live. In swing states, sure, your vote or lack thereof could make a difference. In the states where most people actually live (red or blue), you should be allowed to vote third party without getting yelled at by libs.
Ultimately, if the candidates don’t want to meet the voters where they are (and for the majority of Dems, they are in favour of an arms embargo against Israel), it’s their fault if they lose, not because of individual voters or random guys posting on the internet.
Let’s see if they walk this back again like they did with Netzah Yehuda. And yeah, this isn’t even close to enough.
I mean, Israel is in the process of annexing the West Bank right now, I don’t see the Biden administration doing anything about it.
But they are on enough ballots to get 507 electoral votes (out of 538). They don’t have a chance of actually winning those, but that’s a stupid argument.
Besides, even if they didn’t, and by some miracle actually got a few delegates to hold the balance of power, they could instruct their delegates for the party that will enact some of their policies, you don’t need to win the whole thing to be effective.
Definitely not from the treasury department despite qualifying for public financing.
Yeah, the BBC has been caught writing some headlines that minimise Israel’s role in the conflict. They’ve probably changed it after pushback.
Yeah, usually these companies just end up storing it all in a warehouse or a field until they go bankrupt, then the people behind that company start another company doing the same. And yeah, they promise they’re working on technology to do the actual future recycling, but it never pans out.
What makes you say it’s Hamas that killed them? The pattern is usually the IDF killing them, with the exception of the one incident where the IDF killed a hostage taker’s family.
Isn’t safe storage part of gun safety?