Sundial

Uhhh..smooth? What's chunky tea?

If it's a unique event then I read the article. If it's just something like a cabinet pick, a nation's response to another nation's actions etc. I just rely on the headline.

What in the past 13 months that has happened makes you believe the Democrats were holding the Israelis back?

The escalations we're going to see over the coming months were going to happen with a Republican as President or Democrat. The past 13 months has shown Israel can get away with virtually whatever they want. They were never intending on stopping regardless of the outcome of the election.

Well it's not like Biden/Harris actually tried for a ceasefire. There's really not much change other than the quiet part being said out loud.

I don't know. I haven't heard of this song before.

I see where you're coming from but at the end of the day "Pro-Palestine" implies that these people are only protesting it for Palestine, and not the genocide. If the situation were reversed where Palestine was committing a genocide against the Israeli people then these people would not be "Pro-Palestine". Remember, a lot of people around the world think that Palestinians want to ethnically cleanse the Jews (which is 100% not true). They use this as an excuse to justify what Israel is currently doing. This is what I meant by saying it has an implicit bias. It's a very polarizing situation and the media is making it worse by labelling everyone either Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine. We're meant to believe that by picking a side you forsake the other. Which is not the case for a lot of people.

Personally, I don't think the commenter was wrong to point it out. This isn't an even conflict and Israel is not only attacking Hamas. "Pro-Palestine" implies you're choosing a side in this conflict and allows people to form a bias. Anti-genocide showcases exactly why the majority of people are against the war.

That's more of a case of trying to control the narrative then using a non-inflammatory headline. "Pro-Palestine" creates an implicit bias for a conflict and you'll read it in a certain way depending on your viewpoints on the conflict. The media does this a lot especially for a topic as loaded as this. That ones a really good example of it since the Israelis in Amsterdam were doing a lot of bad shit that prompted a response but all headlines just labeled them as "soccer fans" while they labeled the other side as things like "rioters". It's not about being inflammatory, it's more about trying your best to remove these implicit biases.

My wife and I have pensions plans. We won't retire for another 35 or 40 years but that's the plan.

The "throwing your vote away" argument is a consequence of America's winner takes all kind of elections. It allows for two parties to just become more and more extreme with one just being slightly better and them saying "vote for us or else".

A 3rd party would help balance things out and make it so that people have more options. Of course, America would have to do away with the "first to 270 to become President" rule which is a very tall order admittedly. It's not something I see happening anytime soon, even if Harris had won. The only short term solution I can think of, and by short term I mean I'm the next 2-8 years, is to vote for more independents in the senate and congress. It would force the eroding bipartisanship in American politics to make a rebound. Hopefully.

Democrats are American moderates with a few left leaning politicians. There needs to be a 3rd party that is more left leaning to help balance the forever and gradually shift to the right the American political system is experiencing.