If only Kamala had won, then the Biden administration wouldn’t be doing this

You can add Libya to the list. Slave trade has been booming there since Gaddafi was forcibly ousted.

EDIT: lot of downvotes, no replies. I know I talk a lot about gaza in this comment, but that’s just because that’s something I know about. I’m way less informed about the Ukraine conflict. Ultimately this comment is just asking for what you believe and why you believe it, read the final sentence first.

I kind of tapped out on paying attention to this conflict, I’m already losing enough sleep over the genocide in Gaza.

With the conflict in Gaza, my opinion is that a ceasefire would be best, followed by an abolition of the apartheid state by means similar to how the one in SA was abolished (forced by global divestment like that enforced by 1986 US anti-apartheid act, etc). On a moral level, this solution feels unsatisfying. So much land has been stolen from the Palestinians, and part of me wants them to fight and win it all back, so advocating for a peaceful resolution hurts. But I also know that realistically, continuing to pursue armed conflict will only result in more Palestinian deaths, and more loss of territory, so I reluctantly join protests in favor of a ceasefire.

I realize that the conflicts are different. Russia is much more powerful than Israel, the Palestinian ethnic cleansing has been going on for decades, etc. So I don’t know what to feel about the Ukraine conflict. The pro-peace POV I’ve already heard. Ceasefire, concede Crimea to Russia, Ukraine becomes non-NATO zone, and the killing stops. For the pro-war people in the Ukraine conflict, what are you hoping for, and what facts make you feel this hope is realistic?

It’s always good to hear what the experts have to say on these matters.

Franz Ferdinand was not the cause of WWI. WWI was caused by numerous geopolitical, economic, and societal conditions that all drove us towards it. Can I tell you what those conditions were and how exactly they led to WWI? No, because I’m an uneducated idiot who knows next to nothing about history. But at least I’m not dumb enough to believe that killing one guy led to the killing of 40 million others.

It totally and completely is. I mean, it’s immoral and shitty, it’s a rich white person getting off because of connections, but that’s par for the course. It is expected. The annoying thing though, is the hypocrisy of a lot of the posters here. If Trump did something like this, they would be up in arms about how undemocratic and banana republic-like this all is. And this childish Harry Potter morality which determines how bad a thing is not by looking at the thing itself and its consequences but by looking at who’s doing the thing really gets to me.

What happened? I thought we were talking about Russia? What does China have to do with this?

You know Russia’s been capitalist for like 35 years now right?

Yes they are both bad, the fucking point of the post is the hypocrisy in how the media portrays them. What are you even trying to say? Also, I’m sorry that my comment was longer than you’re able to grasp, that wasn’t very inclusive of me.

So, I believe the same thing, of course. But I think it’s worth taking a moment to think about what we base those beliefs on. For me personally, it’s based almost exclusively on what I read / see in the news, and maybe a stray meme here or there. Posts like OP make me wonder to what extent my beliefs are justified. Because the post is entirely correct, right? For the same exact thing, the news media will use one term when it’s the bad guys doing it, and another term when the good guys are doing it. The war crimes that the US was committing in Iraq were called collateral damage at the time (and they were grievous, we’re talking the act of disappearing people, torture of thousands, murdering hundreds of thousands with cluster bombs and napalm, bombing hospitals, cutting off water to entire cities, truly heinous and extensive). Collateral damage. There were headlines in mainstream media calling the invasion “Operation Iraqi freedom”. In contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was immediately (and rightly) called out as such, as well as their war crimes. I wonder to what extent my opinion of Russia is actually influenced by these differences in terminology and reporting. I don’t think I’m immune to propaganda.

Regime -> administration

Why would you want to create an echo chamber? I genuinely don’t get it, it’s the internet, if you encounter an opinion you disagree with, literally just close the tab and it’s gone

I’ll be honest, I didn’t read the whole thing. But I did try to find a section supporting what you say, and sure, it talks about affective polarization, but it doesn’t show anywhere that this leads to people voting irrationally in the sense of voting against their own material interests, as far as I can see. Is there any section you’re referring to specifically?

Ah I think I understand what you’re trying to say, and I think I’m in agreement. So indeed the electorate is economically progressive, but there is no party on the ballot which represents progressive policies, and hence, by definition, one’s policy preferences have a very loose relationship who you vote for.

I have not been quiet. The writing’s on the wall. First undocumented immigrants, and the democrats are going after trans people next, and I can’t stand it.

Sorry, I misread your comment, I think I read first “they” as “to” or something. I agree with you, deleting my comment.

That connection is much less loose if you consider how right wing the democrats have gotten over the years. And beyond that, note that a big part of Harris’ loss is that her republican light “I’m basically Nikki Haley” campaign mainly reflects itself in people not voting for her. The statistics you mention (or the polls you base your comment on, not sure where it’s coming from) are presumably talking about voters, not the electorate. Harris’ inability to mobilize her base is the problem here, not republicans voting republican.

Thank you for mentioning the ACA! It is a perfect example of the democrats campaigning on a progressive cause, and as a result mobilizing their base and beyond to support them enthusiastically. Progressive policies win, and adopting them, as the democrats at least tried in the obamna era, is a recipe for winning elections.

Now regarding fracking and the border wall, I really think you need to talk to Harris’ people and the current regime, because they have not gotten the memo that their support is reluctant. During their debate, Harris and Trump were yelling over each other to show who’s more pro-fracking. Four years ago such a climate change denialist stance would’ve been unthinkable for the dem candidate four years ago. That does not sound like reluctance to me.

Then the border wall. Please think back to how for example the Clinton and Biden campaigns talked about it. The messaging was very simple: the border wall is inhumane, this country was built on immigration, and even beyond that the wall would be ineffective for obvious reasons. The biden campaign was a bit more about the latter, but still. Now, Harris refers to undocumented immigrants as “illegal immigrants”, completely joins in on the false narrative that undocumented immigrants bring with them a lot of crime (which is categorically false, citizens by far outrank undocumented immigrants in violent crime per capita) and brags about her strong border policies. This is a core part of her messaging that came back in town halls, debates, and interviews. You cannot just ignore this or expect the electorate not to notice. Again, please think back to what the dem campaigns used to be like four and eight years ago. This kind of stance was rightly ridiculed and rightly vilified. Beyond just the messaging, there’s what the current regime is actually doing: the border wall is still being built (again: ridiculed and vilified, rightly so, and you know this), and there are more children in cages at the border than there were under Trump.

And beyond that, the republican candidate was able to position himself as the pro peace candidate next to “most lethal fighting force in the world” Harris! So on this the democrat messaging was actually even more right wing than that of the republicans! They are absolutely sprinting to the right, and denying so is completely ahistorical.

That is indeed what the chart indicates.

deleted by creator