If the only alternative to the failing status quo is the far right then we are doomed. Keir Starmer is not a beacon of hope, he is a pause button on worse to come.

Both can be (and are) true, while the Europeans and later Americans did many things that would now be classified as genocide and ethnic cleansing, the majority of the native population simply died inadvertently of diseases. It’s actually unlikely that the Europeans would have been able to so thoroughly conquer the Americas if the native population would have survived the first wave of diseases.

They could just sit this one out…

Or say that they have full trust in the judgment of the ICJ and will support the ruling whatever it may be.

Imagine a few days later everyone he got into contact with getting horribly sick and dying.

That is what he says, it’s time to look into the intentions. And saying that it is just far right fringe figures that are making genocidal statements is a nice way to play with the facts, because the far right is currently in power in Israel. The SA case at the ICJ contains a long segment of quotes from Israeli officials and ministers making genocidal statements on the record.

To add to this, western governments are fully aware that Israel is breaking international law (and proud of it), because they refuse to answer any questions on this topic. For example David Cameron called on Israel to allow for fresh water to enter Gaza, implying that Israel is currently blocking this. Blocking access to drinking water is in violation of international law, when pressed on this Cameron said he was quote “not a lawyer”, and said he could not remember if he has been shown any evidence of violations of international law by Israel (as if that is something you would forget).

The west is showing that a rules based international order only applies for the global south, many people in the west might be too stupid or ignorant to see this but outside of the west this is doing irreparable damage to the credibility of the west.

I started a discussion on the conclusion of the Mueller Report but my comment got deleted for spreading misinformation.

French cops are perfectly normal, just don’t google “ici on noie les Algériens” and why it keeps being graffitied on a specific bridge in Paris.

The article might be biased but there is a kernel of truth in it, in Germany they are slowly starting to panic that they missed the boat on EVs. 20% of their economy is directly or indirectly dependent on the car industry, thus far they spend most of their efforts lobbying against any regulation disincentivizing combustion engines in Germany and the EU. German politics should have had the foresight that if Germany wasn’t gonna make EVs someone else would.

I think western journalists are committing a grave mistake by assuming the desensitization to journalist killings will be isolated to Gaza. At a certain point you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Let’s say the New York Times publishes multiple articles and opinion pieces stating that a certain country in the middle east has weapons of mass destruction, and following this in a period 20 years a million people die a violent death in said country. Would you blame this on the printing press, on the people delivering the newspapers, on the word processing software used to write these articles, or on the people willingly pushing lies. The same goes for climate change misinformation or smoking health effects misinformation (and many more examples).

Capital has interests and is willing to go quite far pushing them, the tools they use change but the methods and the culprits stay the same.

Sometimes I wonder if the clown music is just in my head or if it’s the theme music for the past few years.

The biggest misinformation comes from Fox or related ventures in other countries. No AI or deepfakes needed, just classical oligarchic propaganda. But yeah let’s listen to the guys willing to let the world burn for slightly higher profit margins what the big problems in the world are today.

There was no collusion, no evidence has been found since then, even with a democratic trifecta after 2020. Trump did try to pressure Ukraine in an effort to meddle in the 2020 election, Trump did incite an insurrection on January 6, Trump did try to overturn the 2020 election. But thus far there is simply no evidence of collusion in the 2016 campaign, even after a two year inquiry.

And I did not cherry pick, I quoted the relevant information, namely the conclusion.

Those are just the facts, no comment here has refuted this thus far by providing any evidence of collusion.

The only thing that happened is that my original comment has been removed for spreading misinformation, which I find frankly stunning.

Biden can stop it today if he wants, either by withholding weapons or by direct intervention (although an embargo would probably suffice). But the fact that the US is STILL sending weapons is nothing less than direct complicity. People have been shot for less during the Nuremberg Trials.

I invite you to read the report sent to the ICJ by South Africa and call that stupidity. Now is the time to act while we can still stop an ethnic cleansing or worse.

People are responsible for the things they do. And the fact that your electoral system gives you the choice between Genocide Joe and Diaper Donald doesn’t mean there is a good guy between them. Electoralism has failed if this is the choice, and change should be looked for outside of it, you can still vote for whatever candidate is the least bad but don’t be smug about the fact that you did something good and be done for the next four years. If things keep going the way they’re going, there is going to be another Republican president in the future, either Trump or someone more dangerous and competent.

Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 173: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

What Bar said is irrelevant, I’m basing my statements on the Mueller report.

They did not, they impeached him twice: once on Ukraine and once on jan 6. Never on Russia; never on the Mueller report.

Then why did the democrats not impeach him based on the Mueller Report?

Hillary Clinton hired Christopher Steele to do oppo research against Trump, this became known as the Steele Dossier and contained a number of accusations on Trump. After the election the FBI started a serious investigation on if these accusations were true, and after two years the Mueller Report concluded that none of the serious allegations against Trump could be verified. This is why the Democrats (who had a majority in the house at that time) decided not to impeach, there was nothing there.

Russia did try to influence the election, but this does not mean Trump was complicit, and no proof of this was found.

Removed by mod

Deep fried with ketchup and mayonnaise 🤤