I'd probably vote for the option causing a bit less suffering in Gaza, as hard as I could. I would not refuse to vote because the lesser evil was still bad.

It's not hard really

R is pushing more support for Israel so D is the lesser evil. There's a reason Netanyahu wanted Trump. If you think it couldn't get worse than D level support, stay tuned

Kanye West?

well at least you're consistent...

Btw, your chosen course of actions indirectly supported the option of spending even more tax dollars on killing people in gaza, so you might want to consider breaking your consistent streak of picking the wrong choice and try woting in a way that aligns with your stated goals

i don’t think Russia had a right to invade.

So perhaps you should stop defending the invasion and start arguing for support for ukraine?

the fact that Ukraine had an election since 2014 and that there is public support for a western friendly government does not change that there was an abrupt change in government in 2014. these things are not connected

These things are totally connected. They show that the russian friendly government wasn't acting according to the will of the people. And if you dig deeper you'll probably find that the russian-friendliness was a bit of a sudden decision that the people hadn't voted for, thus the protests.

What are you supposed to do if the government you elected turns out to act against the interest of the people and looks to be compromised by a foreign power?

if you cannot state “Yes this is true” or “No this is false because xyz” then you are not actually saying anything and I’m going to assume you are not discussing in good faith

Well you are free to do so, but I won't agree with your manipulative framing of things. "yes she was raped, but had she been drinking? did she wear makeup? did she wear a short skirt? I'm not justifying it, it's a simple statement of fact"

You're clearly invested in defending an invasion you after a lot of arguing concede is wrong, so you should take a look at yourself and ask why that is

So it's the moral argument of killing kids now in the hope of making a point that might or might not affect future politicians?

I'm mostly curious if and why you think Russia had the right to invade.

I don't agree with your framing of a,b & c.

A & B: Ukraine has had an election since 2014 so apparently there's public support for a western friendly government.

C: preparing to defend yourself from invasion doesn't justify invading

So why do you think Russia were right to invade?

It doesn't have to make sense for people to convince themselves to do it. It will certainly lead to worse outcomes for gaza

If your morals disregard the probable outcomes and is more focused on normative rules you could make some arguments but that kind of purity won't save a single starving child in gaza

Edit: spelling

Huge numbers of Ukrainian refugees in Europe already. They're doing pretty well and integrate quickly

They like what he says and does. There's nothing deeper, they're not fooled, they're not protest voting. A lot of people in germany liked Hitler, a lot of italians liked Mussolini, a lot of russians like Putin, a lot of americans like Trump.

I think most countries have like 20-30% of people who'd love a fascist leader. They're why high-school bullies are popular rather than shunned for being anti-social. They're fine with people getting hurt as long as they can imagine themselves part of the "strong" side, as that's the only win and feeling of safety they get.

Why they're closer to 50% in the US is a more interesting question

why do you assume i am fine with Russia invading anywhere?

Well you seem fine with russia invading ukraine, and your reasons would cover other european states that also were russia aligned at some point but have since turned west, so it's natural to assume you're consistent.

Do you think it’s a coincidence the invasion happened less than 4 days after the new government was appointed (unconstitutionally)? Why do you think that new government immediately started cooperating with the CIA? It’s because they knew Russia was about to invade them. Because they understood their position.

So a bit like an abused spouse making plans to escape their abuser? They made plans to support their escape so clearly they deserved what was coming?

Most of europe is making plans right now and probably cooperating with the CIA to prepare for russia's next move. I guess we deserve whatever Putin throws at us as we "understand our position"?

When you defend the russian invasion of ukraine with russian talking points, people are going to assume you've fallen for russian propaganda. Actually, that's the generous interpretation as falling for propaganda can happen to good people.

japan is a sovereign nation too. one that doesn’t get to decide whether a foreign power from across the pacific ocean gets to park military bases in their land.

Japan did try to invade quite a lot of places and then lose the ensuing war to end up there though. Ukraine didn't really do that

russia was content with Ukraine being loosely coupled. They were not OK with Ukraine totally leaving the Russian sphere and joining the west. this is what triggered the invasion of Crimea and the little green men from the east.

That rethoric is applicable to almost any russian neighbour. Which countries would you be fine with russia invading if they win in Ukraine? Finland again? The baltics again? Poland again?

Also Russia's invasion isn't something "triggered" any more than an abused spouse "triggers" the violence against them. Russia could have followed international law and not invaded, and so far it seems it would even have been better for them. Blaming Ukraine for getting invaded is pretty russian propaganda in my eyes.

the in depth technical details

TL;DR; sigalarm handler calls syslog which isn't safe to call from a signal handler context.

Their example exploit needed about 10k attempts to get a remote shell so it's not fast or quiet, but a neat find regardless