I have a friend here in the US who is on a visa and is planning on leaving the US after undergrad and doing grad school in Europe somewhere
I don't value privacy for the sake of privacy, I value it because it's useful for defending against capitalists and fascists who want an unequal society that commits genocides and incarcerates people for immutable characteristics. Fascists don't value privacy for the sake of privacy either, for them it's a tool to further their goals of creating the worst society possible. It comes down to a left vs right issue, I picked one side, and Proton picked to promote the other.
just wait until Republicans suddenly turn anti-2A
Use nix home-manager or guix home and put your configs in a git repo (this is my guix home config for reference)
You'd rather side with a Trump supporter than someone who refuses to vote for genocide? That says a lot.
I'm not really sure. One of the most common complaints among the less extreme portions of the right is that the left is too intolerant and strict and not fun to be around. And being more welcoming of the person themselves, even while acknowledging to yourself that their beliefs are severely flawed (possibly due to factors such as propaganda, peer pressure, religious beliefs), might be a way to help capture that crowd and work to win them over.
At the same time, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere where the person is clearly being malicious and possibly dangerous and is a lost cause. Stuff like "your body my choice", using slurs, praising suicides of marginalized people, etc isn't worth tolerating. Also when it comes to group activities, allowing these sort of people and ideas makes minorities uncomfortable, so when they leave to someplace more comfortable now your group is just full of Nazis. I seen no problem with cutting these sort of people out.
For the average Republican voter yes. Neo-Nazis and rulers are probably more intelligent though.
I have mine set to 18 hours
Firstly, I never told anybody to not vote for Kamala, what I have done is explain why people aren't voting for her and why she's a shitty candidate.
Secondly, what I described above are different situations. These are products of flawed systems, the products themselves are not inherently bad and are necessary for survival which is why they exist and why people use them. But because the systems are flawed, there is all sorts of fucked up stuff going on behind them. The products themselves have no power to fix the system, and most individuals don't either without a coordinated effort, unless they are exceptionally powerful.
Kamala, on the other hand, would be one of those exceptionally powerful people that - by working with other politicians - can fix these systems, yet she chooses not to. And one of the reasons for that is because a large portion of her voter base doesn't give a shit at all about the rights of anyone but themselves and their friends, shows no interest in improving them, and even dehumanizes people being oppressed by them, so she knows she can get away with keeping the oppressive systems in tact and the voter base will still support her.
In order to fix oppression, we need to focus not on the products of the systems but on the systems themselves. And how we fix the systems is by someone who is willing to fix them gaining power. Kamala and the Biden administration have demonstrated that they have no interest in fixing the systems, that is why leftists are trying to raise awareness of these problems and are putting pressure on the Democrats and the voter base to change their stances on these problems.
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
Blinken stated here:
In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what he’s intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that we’ve been doing, particularly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, ending the war in Gaza, putting that region on a better trajectory
However, as you said earlier:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.
Regarding:
There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published
I would like to hear more on this.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion.
I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.
I'm not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isn't stopping the military aid which I would like to hear, but it seems to me like both the Obama and Biden administrations are the ones that pulled us into the genocide and that Blinken is playing the "we are working toward a ceasefire" card while not stopping the genocide, and figures like Harris are also playing the same card while pushing the same anti-protest rhetoric as Zionists. This article does suggest that Harris isn't going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like there's at least some chance she might deviate from what Biden is currently doing; however, the article also suggests that she will have a similar approach to foreign policy as Biden. Aside from that, with the track record of Democrats historically supporting Israel and siding with donors against the interests of people along with their recently having dropped multiple progressive issues, I don't think people are convinced that Harris (and many Democrats in general) is going to stop the genocide (not saying that Trump who openly supports Israel is going to be any better).
Not MAGA voters but possibly conservative Muslims who were influenced by Fox News and other far-right news outlets to think that Trump would be better for the economy.
Insurances don't like paying people, if Cybertrucks become expensive to insure then they'll charge more to Cybertruck owners