Hatfort

I don't know what's the joke, but I haven't said or implied anything like that. That's not my position. In the 1940s Germany with Hitler tried to conquer the world, plus eradicate Jews, plus other groups such as gypsies, disabled people, gays, and leftists too. The main opposition was the USSR, who put most men on the table and five feet under to fight them. To be honest, there's a case to think that the USA only intervened in Europe when it was clear that Germany would lose, and they wanted a piece of the pie too. Then the two Germanies were created. In the Middle East, my position is that the USA should have stopped its money and weapon supply to Israel for what has been doing for 11 months, they are dependent on this. Push them to take the two-state solution. Again in Ukraine, I've been pro-negotiation from the beginning. I could pass the first year because there was a chance Russia would economically collapse and wouldn't win, it was at least uncertain. But time has shown that wasn't the case. Since the failed counteroffensive, continuing this war is a mix of delusion and stupidity, with a high price to pay in lives and territory.

I'd say you're welcome, but what's happening is too bad for that.

Of course it's my opinion, you took it from my comment. So what? But I'm speaking based on what's happening in the field. But let me explain further, all this help to Ukraine has deepened it more and more into a hole. An agreement to avoid the war was reached in the beginning, but NATO said no, let's fight and win. It wasn't Russia who backed from it. There have been more chances to negotiate an end since then. The thing is, Russia has been winning slowly but steadily, and the price of the end of the war for his side has risen. The Kursk invasion, apart from being militarily stupid in the whole picture, it's going to cost a lot more to Ukraine. If you chose war instead of negotiations, then you gotta be ready to eat the consequences if you lose. But go and win the war, if you still think you can, nobody is preventing that from happening, except the other side, I guess. With the miraculous 40-year-old F16s, you got it!

Russia is going to win the war no matter if Trump or Kamala win. The only thing that could prevent it is an escalation to nuclear war, but then we are all dead. Trump's words, if you wanna know, he said he would call Putin and offer him Crimea, in exchange for withdrawing from the rest of the Eastern territories, which is unrealistic, not to say ridiculous. So I guess that is his official position. I'd say he is more likely to stop the financial and arms aid to Ukraine, which is the best for everyone. In the Middle East, both candidates are supportive of Israel. I'd say Trump is more dangerous to ignite a war with Iran personally, but I think there are so many interests on both sides so this doesn't happen, so I don't think he could do it, even if he wanted it. Yes, there are powers moving the strings behind the presidents that we don't see, like corporations and lobbies. He can screw things badly though, and create a chain of events that leads to this. Then there's China, a possible conflict with Taiwan, and the Philippines involved too. I think common sense will prevail on this and won't escalate more, no matter if Kamala or Trump is in the White House. Can you imagine China messing in the coastline of California? Then why do people think it's acceptable for the US to mess in the Sea of China?

A conspiracy to change the unfavorable media narrative to this? Can't say no, to be honest. They would have to find this fool to agree, but isn't he a fool or a loony if he tried this himself anyway? Who knows.

This time the Secret Service did fine though, they caught the shooter soon enough, unlike the first shooter who actually shot and almost killed Trump. Of course this is awful, and it has the aggravation to be a political target, for what this means to democracy. Poor countries where the CIA operates know this well, they kill anyone who starts getting popular support that they don't like, who could make a change for the better. Then some people wonder why people migrate from those countries. Anyway, there's the clearly related topic of gun control and background checks, but that's a big no for Republicans. They are trying to blame the rhetoric, then they should start from themselves first. Trump is still a danger to democracy though, he has said it himself, and we saw it in 2020 too. The judicial system has failed for not punishing his criminal behavior. That doesn't mean anyone wants him to be killed, but at this point what we need is for people to vote this shitty conman out of any public administration position, which is not guaranteed.

What a creepy weirdo. Taylor Swift just shared her opinion about Trump and Kamala, why the hell does he offer her something like that? Is he stupid or what? She's dating a football star, by the way, but even if she wasn't.

Yeah, with your comment we can see how insane the conversation is. Incestuous rape pregnancies happen, obviously that's what she's referring to, some of you guys need all explained word by word, you can't grasp the context. Consensual incestuous relationships are very rare in all cultures over the world, but that's another discussion anyway. Detecting a disability or health problem in the fetus is also a reason why some parents opt for this decision, incest or no incest, and they should have the freedom to take it too. Third-trimester abortions are a tiny minority, they are usually cases of unexpected and sudden health risks for the mother.

No, it's understandable, and I wouldn't call it close-minded. But part of this feeling may have been socially conditioned in the first place. But it's mostly work done in the shadows, there can be a social price to pay for doing it, so there are legit reasons for a parent not to want it, even if extremely open-minded.

Trump spoke the truth, there is real evidence of illegal aliens eating pets. Here a picture:

If the argument is that prostitution is wrong because they do it because of an economic disparity, which I could agree to a degree, but how is it that different from so many other jobs people do? It should be respected if there's choice, consent, and no coercion of any kind. I wouldn't criminalize clients either, like some laws try to do. Some regulations and or protection measures to avoid dangers and problems, I think that's reasonable. The world is not perfect, welcome.

There's opinion, which is fine, although I think you are wrong. Then there's the conspiracy about Putin being dead. Come on, man, reconsider your sources of information, which you didn't really share. It's harder to get someone out of his conspiracy delusions than to make a pig fly. Anyway, that's not edgy, is loony. Said it is.

Oh, really? Impressive, tell us more. Also, where do you get your information from?

Okay, but that's different from receiving money for your own YouTube channel from the Russian government itself, the law says you have to register as a foreign agent at least. Russia Today may not be that different from NYT or Washington Post, journalists work and get diffusion where they can or are allowed to. Could they have more integrity and create their own little platform and try? Many do, now it's possible thanks to YouTube and similars mostly, but the traditional mediums are still alive and have a weight. I'm curious to know. What are some examples of US leftists working for RT?

It's always right-wingers getting paid though, via corporations or foreign powerful countries. If you are a leftist commentator or content creator, you've better have a Patreon or some audience to sustain yourself. It sucks to be a leftist. Putin was in relation with many ultra-right political movements in Europe, at least before the war. Some stabbed him in the back when the war started, even calling him Communist, resurfacing the Red Scare of the USSR era, crazy but true, that's the level of politics in Spain at least. It was harmful for them in their country's public eye to support Putin, so they turned their back on him. In a sense, that's what he deserves, if you have relations with shitty groups, that's what you get. I'm not pro-Putin, but this war could have been avoided via diplomacy, NATO keeps getting Ukraine deeper and deeper into the hole. Biden had a decent domestic policy, and internationally he started well by ending the forever war in Afghanistan, Trump has a big mouth, but he did nothing about that. In Palestine and Ukraine, Biden has been awful. Both wars come from before his term, but they exploded in his time, and the money and weapons for both come from him, so what's happening is on him, stupid old man. If Kamala wins, we can't be sure what she will do. I think there are chances she has a more diplomatic and less warmongering approach. I hope she doesn't fall into the need to overcompensate the accusations of being weak for being a woman by trying to be tough or some shit like that. They will tell that about her anyway. There's nothing she can do about Ukraine now, that war is lost. Israel is not in a good place either, Hamas can't be defeated, Palestinian survivors will be willing to fight their murderers back, like it's normal and any other group of people would do, and Israel's economy is in the mud now. At this point, they'd better ask to be annexed to the US, which the facto are, but that would mean they would have to accept all their citizens are equal under the constitution, so on second thought, they won't want that. I'm rumbling.

Consistency in time is something I value too, TYT has it. Hasan has already about 8 years of media career, it's okay for his age, he is not a baby. Forget about his livestream viewers, he has quite a bigger audience on his official channel only, talking about politics. He's quite big and is having more impact than most leftist online channels, including TYT. Not only teenagers, although a considerable fraction of his audience are, and quite a younger average for sure. But that's the future too, I wouldn't dismiss it.

Nope, only Hasan's official YouTube videos have a bigger reach than TYT, and if we count the nonofficial channel views, even bigger. Then there are his live-streaming daily viewers, which are thousands. Hasan is quite bigger than TYT.

Okay, maybe not intellectually. He is more successful in reaching a bigger audience, and making more money as a result, maybe because of his more entertaining style. I think the left needed someone in the media a bit less serious than the usual pamphlet distributor with the hammer and sickle t-shirt giving lectures on leftism purity. Anyway, he is not stupid either, apart from being quite fluent and articulate, he has some brain too.

A few right-winger commentators caught being paid by Russia, Tim Pool and Dave Ruvin, among others. I think the law says they have to register as foreign agents, or something like that. That's what Scott Ritter says, whose home has been raided by the FBI and all his documents and electronic devices taken. In his case, he categorically denies the accusations of being paid by the Russian government in any way, he presents himself as an American patriot, but not antagonistic to Russia, and favorable to its position in the Ukrainian war. He cooperated with the FBI, he says they will find nothing incriminating, and I think he is being truthful about it.

It's pretty remarkable if you think about it. A man his age and origin, from a less developed country, who migrated to the USA, has quite progressive ideas. He must have had a journey himself to reach where he is, from deep blue to green, going through a successful orange business endeavor. Also remarkable that his nephew surpassed him!

Engineer or not, a politician should have an understanding of economy and sociology, which should go hand in hand, in public administration at least. Also some diplomacy skills, to deal with people, businesses, and adversary parties, and even international actors, in the highest spheres. No shame in consulting and hiring experts in different fields, doctors, engineers, educators, militars, etc... A true public service vocation and good public speaking and communication skills.

Nah, maybe a few leftist anitvax loonies, but a very insignificant number. Trump is a good repellent for most leftists, the loss for the left is that RFK was eating from Trump's base, and now is not.

It would have been better for the Democrats if RFK continued as a third party, as he was taking more from the right base. At least he is less stupid than Cornel West on this move. Trump evades a significant loss of votes, and RFK gets a position in his cabinet, if he wins. Like it or not, it's fair game. A ceasefire in Gaza could help Kamala, but Biden and his administration have been stupid on this. Netanyahu doesn't want it, personally, to avoid his corruption charges thanks to times of war, and politically, his objectives of destroying and depopulating Gaza as much as he can, so it's not happening. Netanyahu has Biden in his pocket, but he still prefers Trump. Democrats should have pushed a ceasefire much before, if not for Gaza, for themselves, by not aiding with infinite money and weapons. Now the dog is unleashed, catch it if you can. At this point in the race, you can't, or not as fast as you need to. The race is on though, nobody wins until November. The next president will have two hot potatoes at least. One, to deal with Russia's victory over Ukraine, and Putin is not going to negotiate shit after the Kursk invasion, this may mean a total bye of Ukraine from the world map. Two, the Middle East, a pressure cooker about to explode at any time.

The DNC was very successful, the party is united behind Kamala. Republicans call it a soft cue, the truth is that they preferred a match against old Biden, who wouldn't. Biden left, it was quite late for a primary and those kinds of disputes. Kamala was already second in command, so what happened makes sense. Would she have won a primary if Biden had stepped down earlier? Maybe not. But the Democrat Party gains nothing contemplating those ifs. Things happened as they did, Biden's age-related issues caught up, and something had to be done, and has been done. She has some flaws, but she also has her own professional career behind her, has been VP, and nailed choosing her VP too. Will she lead well and focus on America and Americans more instead of NATO wars, like Biden? That would be good. She first has to win against Trump and then show her colors.

I think this 'believe all women' approach came from a real problem that may not have any good solution. Sometimes women couldn't provide proof of their mistreatment by partners or other men to the police, so nothing was done to help them, and that would backfire on them when their partners found out they were being denounced, so that would lead to more mistreatment and sometimes even death. This was and is a real problem. Some of these new approaches would seek to protect the women who denounced to the police, even without enough proof, with things like restraining orders. But some women can lie, and use those systems to screw their partners, who may be innocent. Things get more complicated when there are children in those marriages or partnerships. That's why I don't think there's any absolute good solution. One way you can screw women who really need protection, the other you can screw innocent men. Which bad is worse?