Hatfort

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    784

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hatfort

  1. Posted

    5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    The right wing in Israel is lost in a genocidal fever dream.

    Indeed, and they blame Hamas, which the word disproportionate doesn't even cover what they are doing in Gaza. But in the West Bank, there is no Hamas, and the violence is constant from the settler terrorists and the IDF itself.

    From just a few days ago, three settlers entered an old man's piece of land with their guns, the man tried to stop them, and they ended up shooting his leg. The IDF came and they settlers left freely, but the old man's son was the one detained. The old man lost his leg. 

    Also the assassination of I think it was the cameraman of the documentary, No other land, that won the Oscar. I didn't find any good video, but here is one that show the the shooter and the victim. 

    These are just two recent examples of what the Palestinians are dealing with. There's no Israel defending itself, there's Israel constantly attacking to steal the land from the indigenous inhabitants as the final objective, Gaza and the West Bank, with different tactics.

  3. Posted · Edited by Hatfort

    1 hour ago, AION said:

    Jews should be prosecuted again for what they have done. 

    Not Jews, Zionists. There are so many antizionist Jews around the world who oppose and denounce the atrocities that Israel is and has been committing against the Palestinians and neighboring countries. 

    Zionist civilians, although they support the genocide, have to be protected too. Now, the IDF soldiers and Zionist politicians who have made the decisions should be prosecuted by an international court for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

  5. Posted

    2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

    You are arguing in bad faith with this one. Everyone know’s Russia’s elections are total bullshit. They have to rig it so Putin gets 120% of the vote. Seriously though Russia completely eradicated all free speech and all opposition parties. Elections  are only true when you don’t completely unalive and destroy opposing political parties in your country over 20 years to the point where there’s no one else but you. That’s not a democratic election that’s the appearance of one. 

    I'm not here to defend Russian democracy as flawless, but the last presidential election in 2024 showed a big support for Putin's operations in Ukraine, which was the most important issue people were voting for. His support has increased since the previous one. 

    One of the first things Zelenksy did when the war started was prohibit political parties that represented Russo-Ukrainians and also the leftwing ones, I saw some footage of political leaders being lynched, tied to posts, and things like that. Ukraine is a de facto dictatorship, with Zelensky as visible head and the extreme ultra-right-wing nationalist factions of Ukraine in military power, even if they are not the majority. They are kidnapping men to send them to the frontline to die in vain, which obviously they don't want. People can't speak up against the war, there are reports of people being arrested for criticizing the war in their daily life, not to mention doing it publicly. But everything is fine because they are at war for you guys. Zelensky can hold elections at the moment he decides to and see if the people of Ukraine still want to continue this suicidal path, besides his legal term has ended.

  6. Posted

    27 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

    Comparing Apples to Oranges.
    Or do you really want Russian style elections in Ukraine? Kill everyone involved, and give yourself 97%
    Elections in wartime do not help win wars. - War is never popular with the people dying, despite what Russian propaganda would have you believe, nobody likes dying over there either.

    Alright Hatford show me where my propaganda is specifically. And I will address it.

    Its unlikely you have a better grasp of the battlefield than I do, as I watched so damned much of it. But sure, point it out. If I learn something i'll appreciate it.

    I pointed two things specifically, the battlefield and the economy. I've seen you addressing them, your assessments are wishful thinking for the future, but not based in the reality but go on. Russia keeps advancing and stopping any Ukrainian offensive attempt and it has wonderful relations with so many big, medium, and small countries to maintain its economy immune to any Western sanctions. They reduced their dependency on the dollar-based trade system as a bonus.

  7. Posted

    1 minute ago, BlueOak said:

    No. Again this propaganda. 
    Leaders DO NOT have elections in wartime. Period.

    The cause isn't lost because the strategy is working. Russia is getting measurably weaker and less threatening the more the war goes on. Its actually working better than I expected with all the hits on Russian fuel right now.

    Sometimes they do, Russia just had them. Ukraine could have them too, to the extent they control. The East parts were the most Russian-friendly ones in voting, so in a sense, he would have an advantage having to exclude the other side of the frontline. However, he knows he would lose them to any candidate offering a negotiated route with Russia, that's the main reason he won't have them.

    But okay, let's say exceptional circumstances can justify exceptional measures. I feel sorry for the Ukrainians though, all this is suicidal for them, they never had a chance to win. The Western countries are okay with losing some cash on this, but Ukraine is putting the bodies. 

    You many times accuse others of falling into propaganda, but you are the one who does that, can't even admit the reality of the battlefield. Also the Russian economy collapse is total bullshit.

  9. Posted

    Man, I saw Zelensky sucking up to Trump, he said 'thank you' so many times in the begining. He wore a suit, he said he wouldn't until the war was over, and it is not over. Whatever, that's not important, but said it is. I don't think they would have ever needed to be so submissive to Russia if he had worked towards a mutual respect and commercial alliance with them, which is what he campaigned for, instead of opening the gates to its big neighbour's military enemy, NATO. I will give a point to Zelensky for the dart of telling Trump he would like to have a country with no elections, like his own. Good one!

    There is no ceasefire, obviously, why would Russia stop a fight that is winning to give its rival a chance to rest, regroup, and rebuild its army? Would Ukraine propose a ceasefire if it was advancing to the 91 borders? Well, no. Trump acting like he's a neutral party in this conflict is ridiculous though, as the USA is the main power of NATO, and he bragged about arming Ukraine more than Obama did in his first term personally.

    NATO won't win this war, so it won't be setting any security guarantees, any less by arming what's left of Ukraine. This is one of the main reasons that started the war. Losing a war brings many bad pills to swallow. If they want to continue, they can, and the fight will continue, but they risk an even worse outcome, as time has shown during these three and a half years.

  10. Posted

    I saw this video, and it reminded me of this thread. Maybe the Democratic Party needs some identity politics in this direction, pandering to men who also need to see masculine figures fighting for positions of power on the left. His main message is clear, the wealth-hoarding oligarchy is the cause of the problems that the working class is facing. As a bonus, stop spending on foreign wars, opposition to the genocide in Palestine, and medicare for all. Graham Platner is a candidate for US senate, I can't say if he is going to win, it depends on his district, but if it is a swing one, he wins. 

    There's also Gavin Newsom, I think he is making some moves thinking about 2028. To awaken the base on the left, he's gotta have something to offer them. He's not gonna win trying to outcompete the right.

  12. Posted · Edited by Hatfort

    2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

    Build a strong military, engage Russia directly, and go on the offensive with a cultural and economic push. 

    China by its proxy Russia, is trying to interfere in European affairs and the European continent. This needs to be cut off with a show of force.  Instead of me constantly reading about Chinese spies stealing tech, or Russian agents meddling in elections, BRICS buying up X or Y country, its about time I saw news stories of us doing exactly the same.

    Peace isn't found by cowering away from a threat. This is a time for a strong but balanced masculine response to aggressive neighbors. We are still too feminine in how we deal with threats.

    I read this, and I think you are right in some ways, but in the inverse, it's Russia that applied your pathway. Sick and tired of NATO and the US sneaking into their close neighbor countries, changing their regimes from allies to militarily hostile ones towards them, including countless destabilization techniques and cues, trying a diplomatic route in Minks where their cosigners repeatedly lied only to buy time, they finally said enough of this shit, and went on a real offensive. Good for them, because nothing else would have worked. They've always let ways out though, because they know the price of war is high for them too, but they have shown to be ready to fight and win. 

    So you want to see new stories of the US meddling in foreign elections? What world have you been living in? Man, they've been doing that shit for decades. I see a lot of medium-tier countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, or Ethiopia tired of the Western ways and joining BRICS because it's better for their political and economic sovereignty. In BRICS there's a win-win approach, with the US you get a corrupt puppet in your country, and your national resources disappear.

    I do think Russia has been meddling in some ways too, they have been found to have funded many ultra-right-wing parties in Europe. Not going into the Russiagate rabbit hole, but just last year some YouTube channels were found to have been funded by Russia. It wasn't the ones like the Majority Report, but the ones like Tim Pool. Because they've found out the recipe, you want to fuck a country, fund their right-wing extremists. Trump himself is the worst that could have happened to the US internally, they had reasons to incentivise that as a geopolitical opponent. 

    Europe has to wake up to the reality that the US is not behaving like an ally. The best example is what they did to the Nord Stream, which was a good and cheap energy supply for Northern Europe, it was blown up by the US, both Biden and Trump took credit for that. Europe can build a military for itself, that's fine in the world we live in, but going into war with Russia is stupid as fuck. Russia doesn't want to conquer Europe, and Europe doesn't want Russia either. Does Europe have to cut with the US? No, but they have to make clear that they are independent from it, and if the market in the East with Russia and China is good for their interests, they should make their own decisions about how they engage with them, the same way they do with the US.

     

  13. Posted

    I don't think the Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin is going to bring any peace. Putin won't accept less than the totality of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson, and NATO hands out of Ukraine. Trump is not going to offer that, and in the end, it's not that bad for the biggest producer of military equipment to have this ongoing, while making Europeans pay the bills. Ukrainian leadership doesn't want anything less than the 91 borders, they are deluded, and or making good profit themselves too. 

    Russia will continue conquering more land, it may go further than these four territories. It seems it's going to be a slow pace, the human wave propaganda news are lies, Russia is not rushing things. In this attrition war, it's possible the pace changes at some point, but doesn't seem it's happening any time soon. The Russian economy's fall is another propaganda talking point, they are doing well, and can sustain this war better than their opponents, and their army is way bigger.

  14. Posted · Edited by Hatfort

    More target assassinations of journalists in Gaza, 28-year-old Anas Al-Sharif, along with other colleagues, were struck in their tent in Gaza city. The genocidal state and army of Israel want the land of Gaza empty of Palestinians, and no witnesses of their crimes.

    Al-Sharif, aware of the danger to his life, prepared a testament in case this happened some months ago. 

    Quote

    This is my will and my final message.

    If my words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.

    First, peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

    God knows I gave all I had, strength and effort, to be a support and a voice for my people, ever since I opened my eyes to life in the alleys of Jabaliya refugee camp. My hope was to live long enough to return with my family and loved ones to our original town, Asqalan (Al-Majdal), now under occupation. But God’s will came first, and His decree is final.

    I have lived pain in all its details and tasted loss many times. Yet I never stopped telling the truth as it is, without falsification or distortion, so that God may bear witness over those who stayed silent, accepted our killing, and did nothing to stop the massacre our people have endured for more than a year and a half.

    I entrust you with Palestine, the jewel of the Muslim crown, and the heartbeat of every free person in this world. I entrust you with its people and children, whose pure bodies have been crushed under Israeli bombs and missiles.

    Do not let chains silence you or borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland.

    I entrust you with my family: my beloved daughter Sham; my dear son Salah; my mother, whose prayers were my fortress; and my steadfast wife Bayan (Umm Salah), who carried the responsibility in my absence with strength and faith. Stand by them after God.

    If I die, I die steadfast in my principles. I bear witness that I am content with God’s decree, certain of our meeting, and convinced that what is with God is better and everlasting.

    O God, accept me among the martyrs, forgive me my sins, and make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people. Forgive me if I fell short, and pray for me with mercy, for I have kept my pledge and never changed.

    Do not forget Gaza… and do not forget me in your prayers.

    Anas Jamal al-Sharif

    April 6, 2025

    Anas Al Sharif picture.png

  15. Posted

    One of the victims of Epstein asking for the files to be released fully, protecting the victims' identities, obviously. Not gonna happen though, Trump is deep in those files, as well as other powerful people. They have discussed how public opinion and also the MAGA base would react to different deals with Ghislaine Maxwell to clear Trump, which has not been good for them, because she is a convicted child trafficker. They are testing the waters. 

    Epstein was probably killed, him gone before another trial was the best thing that could have happened to the powerful people involved. People who knew him closely, like his butler, have said that he wasn't suicidal at all. It's also a mess the recordings that have been provided of his prison door, with minutes missing, and other discrepancies. 

    At least all this got big attention, I didn't think it would. However, the blonde politician from his administration, who claimed she had the files on her desk, then backed off, spiraled all this. Trump must love her so much now. 

  17. Posted

    Man, you're making odd questions and comparisons. 

    Americans have the potential to make their general conditions for all of them better. The upper class successfully confronts the medium and lower ones against each other, and in the meantime, they hoard the wealth. In the long run, it's bad for them too, but they can't see it, it's like an addiction to hoard more money than they will ever be able to spend. The lower class having more money is good for the economy, because unlike the rich ones, they spend it in businesses, money circulates, and this creates jobs, spiraling even more growth. 

    Inequality is the number one issue, it takes it's sub forms in the affordability of housing or healthcare. Families are bankrupted by medical bills, how is that good for the economy? Young ones will have to pay rent for life or mortgages of fifty years for normal houses. Vacation what?

    I'm not asking for a revolution though, just for the Democrats to adopt more progressive approaches to help the economy and the people. 

  18. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    So, it doesn't work for bernie but you think it will work for democrats, the "media and big corporate" will stop bernie, but not democrats?

    Times are changing, I forgot to mention that he was too advanced for his time, and also boomers got it better than the millennials and zoomers. The traditional media still has a huge weight, but since the Internet, it's possible to spread some messages that in the 20th century wouldn't have made even a minute of screentime, and to be insulted at best, in the traditional TV channels. When something gets too big, even the media has to address it.

    So it's worth trying. 

  19. Posted

    1 minute ago, Elliott said:

    Then why doesn't bernie win? should be able to run on his own and win 80% of the vote, no?

    For many reasons, he has been swimming against the current of an already established party apparatus with donors that oppose his policies because they go against their interests, and the traditional media work for the other side too, so they massage the candidates they like, and demonize or just completely ignore the ones like him in screen time, or cut their interventions disingenuosly.

    Despite of this, he got a small niche in Vermont, and make some noise in the 2010s. Did he win? No, in the end he didn't, the powers he opposed did. But he has my respect for his life work and for trying, he did change some narratives, and put the healthcare right in the discussion as well. 

  20. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    I think it's safe to say that you're just making stuff up

    No i'ts not, and I haven't. You have though, you gotta twist reality into saying things like the US system is not bipartisan, or that Bernie has not tried to change the Democratic Party, and gratuitously drop peyorative califications into him and socialists in general that are not based in truth, just for the sake of insulting them. That's low-level discussion. 

    I've made a case of why I think Democrats should adopt a more progressive approach, emphasizing in the economic issues, and that people will respond positively to that. It's important to have charismatic figures as well, someone has to step in. If they do that genuinely, they win. The problem is they are sold out to corporate donors as well. Not as much as Republicans, but quite a lot too. 

  21. Posted

    I haven't commented in this thread for a while.

    Trump's administration chose to continue fueling Ukraine in this war. I thought he wouldn't do it, he had a chance to score a goal as the peacemaker he sold himself to be. Ukraine would have to sit and accept the loss of four territories and sign neutrality, but the war would have ended there. Nothing is easy, but there was a route. Instead, Trump chose the Biden path, and even now has threatened with nuclear submarines. Remember NATO is not officially fighting this war, it's between Russia and Ukraine, so that's crazy. But it's probably for show, kind of what he did in Iran. It's irresponsible and stupid behaviour, but that's who Americans put in the White House. For their defense, Biden wasn't better on that, and we don't have any sign to say Kamala was either. 

    The war continues, so the battlefield will be where the maps are drawn. Russia keeps advancing, and Ukrainians have to retreat or die at the front. After recapturing Kursk, Russia has entered Sumy. Now they have also started to put feet in Dnipropetrovsk. The longer it goes, the less has Ukraine in its hand to negotiate for a less bad outcome, and the weaker their army gets, which is a further risk. 

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, Elliott said:

    The fact that he's independent disproves it is a formidable two-party system.

    In your estimation what progressives voted for trump, how many, and how many sat out the vote?

    Mamdani won the democratic primary with little resistance, democrats didn't even run a contender against him.

    The problem is that Socialist policies are mindless in my opinion, lack any reasoning and are full of contradiction. For example, how many people are leaving the "wage slavery" system to live more self-sustainable lives, how many people are selling their suburban million-dollar homes and moving out to humble rural areas to grow their own food. I didn't say why isn't everyone, I understand many people cannot do this, but why aren't more people doing this? Why aren't more people car-less and riding bicycles. Why do so many people have expensive vacations, working class people, why is tourism a leading industry? Why is fast food a leading industry? It's because the system works for the people, again it's not a zero sum gain system, yes the rich are disproportionately getting richer, we need to tax the heck out of them, BUT the system works for the people too. Socialists are just envious and lazy.

    How many of these popular hard-working activists have started health insurance co-ops? Grocery chain co-ops?

    Why don't they focus in on some progressive towns and grow the movement from them? It's because their theory is flawed.

    It is a two-party system in practice, Democrat and Republican, Bernie worked within the Democratic Party. 

    I'm not going to estimate anything, Kamala didn't get the votes she needed, we all saw the results, lost every swing state.

    I agree with you about taxing the richest, that has to be done. The system is running, I didn't say it isn't, but it's not getting better for more people, the opposite. Some of the things you list as good like taking vacations used to be affordable for a bigger portion of people, now it's a just a no for too many. Cost of education and healthcare is bigger too. The cost of housing where there are jobs is an impossible deal. That's not happening because people now is more stupid, it's happening because the politicians are legislating in favour of the companies and the richest. There is regulation, but in their favour. The wealth that used to be in people's hands and in circulation, benefiting the real economy, now just goes to the corporations that hoard it. This has to be reversed, and I'm not asking the Republican Party to do that, they won't, I'm asking the Democratic Party to do it, and with no hesitation. 

    Socialists are neither lazy nor envious, that's stupid. They are normal people willing to improve things for the majority, using common-sense regulations and putting limits on the corporations so they don't fuck people over. 

  23. Posted

    26 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    Bernie is not a democrat and has never worked to improve the democratic party, he's literally not a registered democrat, he only tried to hijack the party because again, socialists are lazy. He's a charlatan.

    You're trying to say the u.s. system is rigged to prevent socialists from winning local positions, state seats? Preposterous, socialists have never put in any work, and never will, it's literally their nature.

    Bernie has been an independent, but due to the US bipartisan system, he has indeed worked inside the Democratic party, and he has tried to push some progressive policies, which is a way of improving it. He is not lazy, he has been working his whole life, neither are socialists in general like you say. 

    No, I'm not trying to say what you wrote. What I said, and you can read, is that creating a new party in the bipartisan system of the US is inviable in practice. So the way for now is what Bernie did, try to get seats in a party hostile to them, winning the votes of the people by advocating for their rights and life improvement. Mamdami is kind of doing it now, but the challenge is huge, because they have the apparatus of the party where they are operating is against them. 

    What I also say is that if the Democratic Party apparatus, instead of charging against those progressives, should try to integrate them and their good policies. The Democratic potential voters are more progressive than the party ever goes, but you gotta have their backs, so they got yours in exchange. 

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, Elliott said:

    You think Bernie has done something in 50 years, let me prove to you very easily that he hasn't, why hasn't he built up the socialist party, why doesn't he build the socialist party every 4 years by running an enthusiastic Socialist primary? Why doesn't he support smaller socialists to run and build the party, the position of mayor in nyc is not a small position by the way. By your assessment of reality it should be extremely easy given everyone wants bernies policies and no one likes democrats.

    Just because socialists haven't been in power doesn't mean they couldn't do anything, they haven't built their party, at all, haven't even tried.

    Before you go on about splitting the left, that doesn't apply to state and local positions, it would make no difference to split the vote in many areas. You can build a socialist party, but just like socialist policies and public outreach, they're lazy as fuck.

    Look, Bernie lived in the time he lived, it's not on him that the good policies that he was advocating for have not been implemented, when there's everyone in the media and political establishment preventing it. It's on them, not on him. 

    He made his choice to try to change things from inside the Democratic Party, which was the right one. It would have been good to start a new party, if the US system wasn't totally rigged against that option in practice. Maybe there will be a time to try that in the future, it wasn't on his. It's also a pain in the UK, not as much, but Corbyn grew some balls and is going for it. That won't really be splitting the left, but giving voice to it, because Starmer is rightwing. Margaret Thacher said that her best achievement was Tony Blair, which means that what was supposed to be the Labour left, integrated rightwing policies into it, which is the same that has been happening in the US Democratic Party, and in many other countries in Europe is similar too. 

  25. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    No you don't, you should consider the common voter, is a woman running for president "woke" to them?

    You should not fight for policy, you should educate the public to the point they agree with you, policy change should be from a consensus. It's lazy to just want to push new policy through, progress requires outreach and educating.

    "Inequality" you have to stop thinking like the world is zero sum gain, rich getting richer does not mean the poor are not doing better. The democrats do progressive policy when in power. The world has REDUCED inequality due to democrats, globally, the people have gained in equality, again you're cherry picking a selective snapshot, and what's funny is that it is a snapshot of suburbanites in America, as a 'socialist' you're supposedly supposed to care about all people.

    Most who would say that would be on the Republican side anyway, so that's a them problem. Neither Hillary nor Kamala were good candidates for different reasons. Neither of them, got the progressives on their boat. You need that to win, no matter your gender or race. Obama had it, Biden to a less degree, he kept Bernie closer instead of ostracizing him. If you get the progressive base and media enthusiastically pushing for you, you win as a Democrat, if you alienate them and have them demotivated, Republicans win, even if they get less votes than what they did before. 

    It's a bit like MAGA base with the Republicans, they provide the enthusiasm dose needed in elections the very least. Then moderates move their asses too. The difference is progressive policies are good for the economy, unlike MAGA ones which are practically a scam, like Trump's big beautiful bill, like he calls it. It's a big ugly bill, Americans will pay the price.