I don’t think it’s just the fact that she’s a black/Asian woman.

I saw this on BBC News which is probably correct:

[Trump has] completely “reimagined” the Republican party from its country club voter stereotype to appealing to working class families, while the Democrats had become the “party of Hollywood”.

I get paranoid enough about making sure I’m clicking the correct search result and not some scam. I hope I would avoid any AI answers but yeah, to many people it could be confusing.

It would be more democratic if Puerto Rico had the same congressional representation as a state. Same with DC. Also, maybe the number of senators for every state should be proportional to population, again to make things more democratic.

“Killing is fine as long as your numbers aren’t too high”

It’s just a dumb take isn’t it.

Edit: you’ll try to say “that’s not what I’m saying” but it’s what you’re suggesting, by saying that Hamas are somehow more moral. What I’m suggesting is that maybe they’re both bad. Also, if Hamas had the same amount of weaponry that Israel has, do we really think Hamas would hold back?

I think the ICJ was correct to want to bring the leaders of Israel and Hamas to trial for war crimes. I don’t think it makes sense to give one side a pass, or say they’re better, when both have killed many innocent people who didn’t deserve death.

I’m not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith

The fact that you seem so upset with me saying that killing civilians is bad no matter who does it implies to me that you think it’s fine when some people do it. Or that it’s fine as long as they don’t kill too many people.

You’re extremely stupid.

Yeah I’m not into the whole “let’s excuse Hamas” thing. In my view killing civilians is bad, which is why I think both Hamas and the Israeli government are bad. Neither should kill civilians at all - not 1, not 100, not 1,000, etc.

I think I heard on the radio the other day someone saying that reparations should be less about handing cash to descendants of slaves, and more about investing in descendants of slaves, which I guess would mean ensuring that those descendants have an equal access to education and job opportunities, and maybe other adjustments. Whether that’s a good idea, I guess society would have to decide, but I thought it was interesting.

In the future it might not be though. Developing countries are getting richer and they have growing populations. Britain’s population isn’t growing that much. Even public opinion within Britain may one day favour reparations, let alone outside of Britain.

Ideally I don’t think any civilian deaths should happen, so they’re both wrong. I’m not going to say Hamas is somehow better because they killed fewer people. To me that seems like saying “oh you didn’t kill too many people, that’s fine then”. Which would be completely wrong in my view.

Is there any evidence of these CIA/Israeli bots / paid posters?

If somebody makes a pro-Israel post, maybe they just genuinely support Israel (I wouldn’t say that’s my view currently - I think both Israel and Hamas are wrong because both have killed civilians).

Edit: your downvotes aren’t evidence.

Good point. The uncomfortable truth that many people don’t want to face.

Or being shot in Moscow, or being poisoned just before boarding a plane…

they’ve killed and continue to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the independent republics

Even if I assume the truth of that statement, do you not care about the deaths of Ukrainian civilians?

We couped Ukraine in 2014

My understanding is that Ukraine’s parliament (Rada) removed Yanukovych from his position as president. That seems fair to me. Many countries, including the US, have legal processes for removing their leaders.

I would wager that every country has far-right elements, including Russia.

What Russia claims though is that the Ukrainian government is full of Nazis, which I don’t think is true.

I wonder what happens if you own a Chinese car but the car decides your social credit score isn’t high enough to drive…

If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.

You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.

Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don’t like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:

Maybe this community could have a sticky post at the top, telling people about !europe@feddit.org

For example, the following community has a sticky post at the top (at the time of me writing this): !programming@programming.dev