People who say “two state solution” can be broken down into three camps:

The ignorant. Been told “two state solution” for so long they believe it is the best outcome, but know nothing about the material conditions. - your well meaning but brainworm riddled Aunt.

The realist. Knows “two state” is bullshit. Doesn’t want to reveal their power level and scare normies. Might parrot the phrase for rhetorical reasons, but understands the reality of the West Bank. - every Palestinian activist who says “two state” on a public forum, at least when cornered.

The dog of Empire. Knows “two state” is bullshit, might not consciously acknowledge it, but if pressed will admit it. Uses it to justify occupation (Palestine isn’t a state yet) and as a carrot to trick people into thinking they are reasonable. “I think, two states is the best solution, but . . . .” - the US State Department, and every white man whose profile pic shows them driving a pickup truck while wearing sunglasses

In my anecdotal opinion, the ones I interact with most online are dogs of empire. Most “average” people are just ignorant. Although after funding and supporting a genocide for a year my sympathy for the ignorant has been exhausted.

One is less than two, and an important step on the way to 0.

I remember arguing with someone In 2003 that there must be WMDs because George Bush wouldn’t risk his re-election if he couldn’t produce them.

I will never forget how incredibly stupid I felt in '04.

This is one of those “sophomore” things.

Where a very basic answer, could be yes. The more complex and nuanced answer is no. But at the end of the day if you asked an expert they would say, in a nutshell, yeah.

See also, slavery in the civil War. Was the war fought to end slavery? yes.

If you want to be pedantic it didn’t start off as a war of liberation and there’s quite a bit to say about treatment of black people in the North, and the slave states that were still part of the Union during the war.

But the end of the day if you had to answer with yes or no, the answer is “yea”

This is Garibaldi erasure and I will not stand for it!

For real.

Conditional support until he finds a barber that doesn’t fuck his shit up.

https://www.devonlive.com/whats-on/food-drink/grand-big-mac-mcdonalds-jr-1236204.amp

You should know that the presence of a German name does not indicate it’s fascist.

Especially not if you’re going to claim to have read Marx.

OP owes it to themselves to learn more about guns, and to keep in mind Marx’s statement about arming the proletariat.

AliExpress may indeed be full of Nazi shit, but this is not Nazi shit, this is just gun fetishism.

So far Hezbollah and Iran have been VERY careful about escalation.

I worry those days are over.

IDK what the response to this will be, Iran still hasn’t responded to the various provocations it has endured either. Something tells me that if Iran decides to launch a bunch of missiles again, they’re going to be less inclined to give the Americans a heads up or launch their old shit again.

Reports of at least one 10-year-old child killed.

Supposedly these pagers were handed out not just to fighters, but to first responders as well.

I would subscribe to your blog.

Been reported that 20 grams of high explosive was hidden in the battery of each of these.

Hopefully a few failed to explode and we will get more information.

Jesus Christ is that how low the bar is?

I plan on leaving the top of the ticket blank.

Fortunately I live in a state where my presidential vote does not matter.

Someone on this site made the argument that at this point Trump is probably the harm reduction candidate, and Kamala Harris the accelerationist.

I don’t agree entirely, I think it’s safe to say that Donald Trump is very dangerous for marginalized communities within the United States. But it’s really sad when his policy on Ukraine is objectively better than the Democrats.

I feel like there are only two choices This election cycle. Do I want to go to war with Iran and Russia at the same time, or just go to war with Iran?

The article is saying that fact checks don’t help, when the candidates rule lawyer their way into turning a false statement into a fact.

By any objective measure Kamala Harris’s comment about no US troops being in a war zone is false. Fact checkers say its true, because a bunch of Adderall addled lanyards have redefined the key words in this statement to make it technically true.

By any objective measure, a fact checker should be taking Kamala to task for repeating propaganda about October 7th. But no one will.

I don’t think this article objects to candidates being factual, as much as it points out that what our media does is not actually checking facts.

You should demand your money back, lib.

Rich as Measurehead.

I like it.