And moreover it was about not deploying nuclear weapons there, which they haven't. The commenter above has it wrong. The soviet diplomats were no idiots at all. They knew exactly what they negotiated and agreed to and it's precisely what happened.
Maybe I just expect better from people on the left. But you're right.. Why should they be different?
But still. If one cares about one topic so much that they would not vote for someone because of it. Then why would they not go the extra mile and think about what the consequences of their decision will be with regard to that topic? And I don't think that you have to be a political junkie to have such thoughts. It's no rocket science at all.
You're totally right that material change is needed. I just doubt that there's so much Biden can do until next year. Even if such decisions were made right now, it would take a while until the effects would be felt. And if changes are not enshrined in law, they'll be gone soon. But there's no perspective to achieve that as long as you don't control house, senate and presidency.
Amazing how you have the patience to address frustrated people like that. I guess this surely is the way but encountering these baseless yet absolute accusations just makes me angry haha.
I wasn't advocating for voting democrat solely because of Trump. I was advocating for carefully weighing the consequences of ones decision in elections.
Politicians should learn what their base cares about and do something
I'm sorry but to me this is just borderline naive and it completely ignores all societal and political realities. The US has a 2 party system. It's shitty but right now that's exactly what it is.
That means: All the things that some voter wants can only be represented by either one, or the other election platform or ideology. But even if you had a system that allowed for 5 or 6 parties to coexist in parliament... What do you think: How many compromises would you have to make to allow yourself to vote for one of them? I'll guarantee you that you will always have to accept a lot of discrepancies between your ideals and the ideas a party wants to realize. Because that party must appeal to many voters if it wants to have a perspective to govern, i.e. implementing their ideas.
And that is why there is no such thing as "what their base wants". The base of any political party will be diverse in their interests. To claim that the democratic base has ending the genocide in Gaza as their top priority is just wrong. It might be a sizable chunk of young voters but of course they can tip the scales in a close race.
But there's another thing that I find naive here. And I see it in so many comments of the loud "anti genocide joe" faction: And that is the part "and do something" in your quote above. Why do some people think that the president of the US is so almighty that he could just snap his fingers and boom, the genocide is gone. He can't make these decisions alone. He's part of a system of checks and balances for very good reasons. And the political reality is that there exist many, many competing interests in politics, there are binding contracts, there are diplomatic ties, etc. etc. To conclude: It's practically impossible for Biden to stop the genocide right now. So if anyone insists that one should not vote for him because he hasn't used his divine powers for ending the genocide yet.... For me it's just dumb. It makes no fucking sense at all.
Yeah because as a voter we should put principles above everything else and base our decision on single issues... Isn't that similar to what the MAGA crowd is doing?
Sure, the principles are very different. But the outcome is the same: Hurt yourself by ignoring the complexity of a political system and voting against your best interest because you mainly listen to your emotions... I don't get it!
Its true. Even in wars there is a rule of law. Attacking civilians is forbidden. But that thought of sparing non-combattants doesn't seem to apply in this case in the eyes of some very just people who rightfully codemn a genocide. Dehumanizing as a response to dehumanization... It's ironic.
News to me that the Houthis are the recognised government of Yemen that could claim sovereignty. Also what are your sources on the perception of the strikes in the Global South? Why should a person in lets say Laos care more about Yemenis than Ukrainians? As a conflict it's similarly distant from their own lifes.
Wait until China has to deal with the fallout of the climate crisis. China is quite vulnerable to climate extremes and because of their demographics they'll have a huge shortage of people fit for work once the climate damage really starts kicking in.
Okay not like any RPG. It's a special kind of RPG. And as a game it has many elements that make video game RPGs so addictive.
I agree with you on the ethics. Maybe Palworld in that sense is more honest than Pokémon. In the Pokémon anime however I always had the impression that they try to depict Pokémon as having humanlike character tendencies, e.g. some liking to get into fights and others just working as nurses in the Pokémon center...
Sounds like any RPG to me. Except that your party consists of the same creatures that you're fighting. In that sense it's maybe more egalitarian than RPGs featuring classical enemy races like orcs or goblins.
In Pokémon the concept of evil comes in the Form of Team Rocket and other shady exploitative organisations. Interestingly Palworld also has a counterpart organisation called Syndicates. But I still don't know what their crime really is since you're really doing the same thing of fighting and catching Pals. Nevertheless you have to treat the creatures in your party right, if you want to make progress in the game.
Guilt by association is no joke! Even friendship can be dangerous! Better to avoid any human contact to not draw suspicion.