R

I also watched the Rachel Maddow expose the other day (not my only source, but certainly the most recent)

Looks like I HAVE to use it now

Read the abstract, looks intriguing, not paying $30 for it though

Thanks!

I mean, I never said I did. I'm just throwing out another possibility (that has happened before) so that people don't just walk away taking the meme at face value without engaging with it

Is that inflatable real? (Please for the love of God be real and let me buy one)

I wouldn't really call his last presidency a successful one, but he still managed to fuck over everyone (except possibly Elon Musk). We can't let Trump anywhere near that office ever again.

P.S. I think you and I have fallen to the Leftist Curse of arguing nonstop even though we only disagree on like 1-5% of the conversation

Thanks friend!

He may not have been fully aware of what he was being filmed for. This wouldn't be the first time a famous actor had been tricked into being part of an anti-science video:

https://youtu.be/icwDF8wRgF4?si=oSXWf_nB1oQPLKQv

I still argue that a second Trump presidency would lead to worse outcomes for everyone involved, perhaps even the entire global population, than a Harris presidency.

I mean, you're not wrong, but again, it's extremely unlikely that Israel/US relations sour SO bad that the US wouldn't step in and help defend an Israel under assault. Again, it's theoretically possible but very unlikely. Plus, what you said is true regardless of who wins in November, which was my original point

Theoretically, sure, it's possible. I think what's more likely to happen if Trump fucks up is that Israel will just keep up the attack maybe with slightly less support. It's not like they are a U.S. State that has to abide by a SCOTUS decision; they are (for good and bad) their own sovereign nation and could WOULD MOST LIKELY make the choice to continue their abhorrent actions, regardless of whatever Trump himself might do.

The state of Israel is not a "puppet" of the U.S., only able to make a movement when given a command from the White House; it is closer to Frankenstein's Monster, fully capable of making its own decisions, and sometimes they choose to do evil things (regardless of how 'justified' they tell themselves it is). It's not a 1-to-1 comparison, but I think it's a better way to understand the whole situation

I recognize your anger, I am also distraught about Palestine and I wish we had a candidate who was adamant about not giving more aid to Israel. I'm not saying you need to give up on your ideals nor am I telling you to shut up about it. But let's be real here, as much as we hate it, we only have 2 choices in November, and one of them will cause much MUCH more damage to Palestinians, Americans, and quite possibly the entire globe if he gets elected. We CANNOT let Trump win, so again, as much as I don't like many of Kamala's stances, she is undeniably receiving my vote

In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one's view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you're not being fair at all; you're giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don't want to admit you've been played

In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one's view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you're not being fair at all; you're giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don't want to admit you've been played

Did you even read the rest of the article? Or did you just Ctrl+F "Trump" and "Harris"?

I agree in principle, but I feel like I should point out that mindset is very similar to what we all thought back in 2016, and he ended up 'winning' because we underestimated his chances. Unfortunately, we'll just have to let hindsight be the judge

Ah. Misleading headline then

So this summary I'm going to give really does not do justice to the whole situation, but I'm going to try to be brief-yet-informative:

In 1921, Tulsa, Oklahoma, a black teenager, Dick Rowland, was arrested for 'assaulting' a white woman (most reports say he likely just tripped and accidentally touched her as he fell; she declined to give a statement). At the time, the black community in Tulsa was one of the most financially successful in the country, colloquially called "Black Wall Street." Meanwhile, the KKK and racism in general were at a historic high across the entire country, not just the South. As news spread over the arrest, a large group of white people (some of whom had been deputized earlier that day for this exact purpose) arrived at the jail to lynch Rowland as well as a smaller group of black people who arrived to defend him from what was certainly going to be his death. Some sources disagree on how EXACTLY the violence started but the general consensus is that the police convinced the black group to go home but someone in the white mob tried to disarm them before they left, possibly even trying to wrestle away someone's gun. A shot was fired, and then many, many shots. Over the next 16(ish) hours, white mob violence burned down 35 square blocks of Black Wall Street (at least 1250 homes), somewhere between 50-300 people died, many hundreds more were injured, and not a single criminal charge was brought to anyone. Also insurance companies refused to compensate the black families because obviously

Fast forward to 1996, and the city of Tulsa formed a committee to investigate the Massacre (only 75 years late). The committee found that the city was at least partially responsible and should (among other things) pay reparations to the few remaining geriatric survivors who would have been mere children at the time. The city refused to do follow their advice (even though they were the ones who MADE the committee in the first place) so a lawsuit was attempted. It was thrown out because the statute of limitations (which was only 2 years for a civil rights claim) had long since passed. Although the city DID give out some medals to the survivors as if they were fucking Olympic athletes or something and not the victims of a state-supported hate crime/murder spree

It's another example in a very, VERY long list of American hypocrisy, broken promises, and racism that we refuse to even acknowledge on an official level. It's kinda similar to modern-day Japan denying that they committed any war crimes during World War 2 despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary