Zuzak

Also I don’t think Zohran’s opinions on Israel would’ve swayed this election one way or the other. I still probably would’ve voted for him if he said the generic pro-Israel democrat talking points because of the material things he was offering, and I imagine a lot people who are pro-Israel but aren’t completely rabid would’ve done the same the other direction.

It's absolutely wild to me how much foreign policy seemed to be focused on in a mayoral race. Sure, it's a particularly important mayoral race, but it's not like the mayor decides whether to send arms to Israel or not. The only point they could raise in the debate was whether the candidate would visit Israel - a completely symbolic gesture. Should I be interrogating my local dogcatcher about their thoughts on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

It does, however, mention adultery quite a lot.

Arizona has been temporarily occupied as a buffer zone to protect Israel from the expansionist state of Commiefornia. Settlements are to begin construction next week.

Germany has issued a statement condemning California for making this action necessary.

I believe Franz Fanon made the argument that in some developing countries, the domestic class divide is less significant than the international class divide, and that there can be a logic to persuing a class truce. If a country becomes colonized, the domestic bourgeoisie stands to lose their positions (at least potentially) so there's a greater degree of shared interests. This is in contrast to a more old school perspective, which would argue that a class truce isn't really possible, that the bourgeoisie will never let up, and that attempting to persue that course is reactionary and opens the door to opportunism.

I don't have a strong opinion on it because I'm in the imperial core, I think either approach can be valid depending on the circumstances.

At this very moment, Iran could be in possession of dozens of atoms, maybe more.

Dirt_Owl is two weeks away from developing nuclear pission.

Comrade Ghenghis Khan supported revolutionary defeatism all the way from Korea to Eastern Europe

but rewatching the presidential debates of 2000, it's really hard to find a place where Bush and Gore actually differ on foreign policy.

I distinctly remember seeing a clip from those debates where Gore took a more interventionist position, but idk if I could find it. It's a real thing though, it's a big part of why Bush was all like, "This is not about nation-building" and stuff like that at the start.

It only has to work long enough for them to die off and they're all like 90, they've probably got enough "then they came for's" ahead of them to be fine.

It's all about having common enemies, imo, plus similar cultural signifiers. They're both in the "blue tribe" and whatever views someone might have about "political" things like war, it's just a difference of opinion.

What I mean by "political" is that most people have a certain set of values that they'll say, "shouldn't even be political," and you can generally tell almost everything about a person's politics by what they put in that category. The neolibs and radlibs place things like LGBT rights in that category, but slaughtering a bunch of foreigners, well, that's a complicated foreign policy debate where reasonable people can disagree. Plus, I mean, they're radlibs, so they're probably gonna see eye-to-eye with neolibs on Ukraine, for example.

The Germans learned a lot about how to evade being held responsible for committing genocide, and nothing else.

Literally the first line of the article:

Coverage of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza is mostly dominated by talk of weapons.

It goes on to address this perspective and make an argument why troops are important. Did you actually read it before coming to that conclusion?