anarchiddy

Seriously though, bombing Iran has been a multi-generaltional bi-partisan wet dream since the bombs stopped dropping in WWII. Nobody is impeaching him for this - like two weeks ago Schumer was goading him for 'being weak' for negotiating with 'the terrorist nation of Iran'. There might be 5 people in total in congress who oppose a war with Iran.

Here maybe this will help:

"Israel has a right to defend itself"

talking about how ~~Israel-born Israelis~~ [native palestinians] ‘belonging’ in the countries of their ~~European ancestors~~ [pan-arabic neighbors]

You forgot this part -

Iran has a right to defend itself

That comment was tongue-in-cheek.

rendered stateless and subject to brutal persecution

Well if they were subject to a differen't ethnonationalist state who had a monopoly on the use of force against them, that would be really bad.

Thankfully, that has never happened before.

Just want to repeat the comment you hid there in case it's relevant to the point being made.

They can also remain in Palestine and live alongside native Palestinians or return to their home countries under the right of return.

The point is that ethnic jews would no longer have the exclusive right of self-determination in Palestine.

They can also remain in Palestine and live alongside native Palestinians or return to their home countries under the right of return.

The point is that ethnic jews would no longer have the exclusive right of self-determination in Palestine.

Just a helpful reminder that class relations are real, and that most legacy news outlets have a shared class-interest in de-emphasizing class and income as important electoral issues.

There's a really good reason why democrats will seemingly do just about anything to avoid platforming socialist policies - and it isn't because they aren't popular. They see them as an existential threat to their party, because not only would they lose their primary funding sources if they were to stop protecting donors from wealth re-distributive policies, but they'd also lose their network of private sector allies that enable them to govern at all.

Once you understand the scope of the problem, it's really hard to see the two party system as anything other than good-cop bad-cop neoliberal theater.

Which looks worse? A country blatantly attacking its own citizens flying its own flag? Or a country attacking illegal immigrants flying a flag of a foreign country we’ve kinda’ had a war with in the past?

My point is that the protestors are there specifically to protest against the forced deportation of legally present non residents under racist, jingoist pretexts. Those people aren't illegal, but they're being deported because of their foreign status (particularly mexican and hispanic foreign nations). Flying the mexican flag (especially next to american national symbols) is meant to assert their right to be here, and that the community of LA stands with them for their right.

You're suggesting that they instead waive american flags so that it looks like trump is abusing US citizens with the National Guard, when the whole point of the protest was to resist the forceful deportation of immigrants. If they were to 'make it look like they're US citizens' then that would defeat the purpose of that demonstration.

Liberals (idgaf if that's you or not) want to make this about Trump's militarized crackdown on protests because that's what materially affects them, ignoring the reason we're in the streets protesting in the first place.

Please, PLEASE stop being a reactionary and understand how messaging and subtext works.

lmao, that's not what reactionary means. Just fuck off already.

I don't even know who or what issue you're specifically referring to, but it doesn't mean anything to moralize about the issues voters are responding to. It doesn't even really matter what specific issue that does it - if voters lose faith in democracy serving their interests, they just aren't going to bother working within that system. They'll either become completely apathetic or become radicalized against it.

This is what a failure of democracy looks like - not a military coup or an armed rebellion, but a slow, gangrenous rotting of trust in democratic institutions.

Nobody "makes" it an "election deciding issue" - those are simply issues that are important to a large portion of the electorate.

If both parties refuse to address it, then those people who care a lot about it are less likely to vote, period, and the more of those issues stack, the less likely they are to vote. It's infuriating listening to libs whinge about non voters, because they simply do not understand how much apathy their own party is creating.

Just look at the current party approval ratings and tell me that it matters to anyone that the Republicans are 'objectively' worse.

You're saying protestors shouldn't use Mexican symbols in their protest because it will be used as reactionary fodder for fascists. That's the definition of whitewashing.

to alter (something) in a way that favors, features, or caters to white people

You don't combat racism by whitewashing your protests.