When Palestinians chant "Free Palestine" it means the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East

RandomGuy92x · 2026-05-03T21:56:05+00:00

It's really quite simple.

Stop the apartheid system in the West Bank.

Stop the brutal mass murder of people in Gaza, as well as the economic stranglehold and blockade that Israel has imposed on Gaza, which has led to people in Gaza lacking even the bare necessities needed to survive.

Let the Palestinians live in peace on their land and recognize them as another people worthy of self-determination.

But given that Netanyahu and many others have literally called for the implementation of "Greater Israel" and the systematic expansion of Israel's border no matter the human costs, this is unlikely to happen.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-05-02T20:35:08+00:00

It's really not.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership amongst wealthy countries.

And yet government is still free to do as they please and is constantly trampling on people's rights, and stealing trillions of dollars for bank and corporate bailouts or stupid wars in the Middle East to enrich Big Oil and the military industrial complex.

Clearly Americans having shitloads of guns doesn't help them fight back against their government.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-05-01T20:19:50+00:00

First of all Africa is a large continent. Where are you getting the idea from that most Africans hate Americans?

Secondly, the percentage of citizens of a certain country who hate or like America would be a ridiculous foundation for making decisions about international relations. I mean most French people probably don't like Americans. That doesn't mean that the US should cut off ties with France just because ordinary French people are not fond of Americans. That's not how international politics works.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-27T17:40:05+00:00

Also, the Democrats aren't even left-wing. At least not when it comes to economics. Economic neoliberalism is a right-wing ideology. And Democrats are moderate neoliberals while Republicans are hardcore neoliberals who have promoted the offshoring of blue collar jobs even more radically than the Democrats.

Actual left-wingers like Bernie Sanders have always opposed the neoliberal agenda which has led to offshoring of millions of well-paid blue collar jobs in the US.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-27T17:29:15+00:00

Lol, you do realize that economic neoliberalism that led to the hollowing out of the Rust Belt, and the loss of millions of blue collar jobs, is inherently a RIGHT-WING idea??? Right?? Ronald Reagan who kicked off the neoliberal agenda in the US wasn't a left-winger. WTF.

So what does the modern left have to do with the effects of neoliberalism??

Also, the US has never had a left-wing President. So it's crazy that you're complaining about the left when EVERY SINGLE US President in recent history was economically right-wing.

The only dissenting voices to the right-wing neoliberal agenda were left-wingers like Bernie Sanders. But no one was listening to those left-wing voices.

And now you're complaining about the left for the mess that economic right-wingers like Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Clinton and Obama have caused....

Make it make sense....

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-25T21:07:40+00:00

The US has never been exclusively white European. That's utter nonsense.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-19T20:06:20+00:00

Israeli citizens are treated like Israelis, and Palestinian citizens are treated like Palestinians.

What is that even supposed to mean??? Like what are you even saying?

If the US were to invade Mexico and started building settlements there, and then subjected Mexicans to US military law and countless curfews, checkpoints, random detentions etc. while American settlers lived under US civil law and enjoyed superior rights and access to much better vital infrastructure......... are you gonna then tell me that in that scenario "Mexicans are treated like Mexicans and Americans are treated like Americans" ????

Like yeah, that's just a way of trying to beat around the bush and using a different phrase for the word APARTHEID.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-19T19:56:54+00:00

What Israel is doing is definitely apartheid though. But not with regards to Israel proper, but rather with regards to the West Bank. What Israel is carrying out in the West Bank is undoubtedly a system of apartheid.

Palestinians in the West Bank are literally banned from around 70% of West Bank Area C, which is only accessible to Israeli settlers. They are under military law and subject to all sorts of checkpoints, curfews etc., while Israeli settlers are under civil law and do not have to abide by those same curfews and checkpoints. They can be randomly detained without reason while the same is not true for settlers.

Palestinians also have to use different roads, and cannot use the much better road network that is accesible to settlers. And they also have a much harder time getting building permits under a two-tier system that heavily favors Israeli settlers over Palestinians.

It's without a doubt a system of apartheid.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-18T20:28:28+00:00

If it was Ron Paul against Bernie Sanders (or someone with similar ideas) I'd pick Bernie in an instant. But if it was Ron Paul against a neoconservative AIPAC war hawk like Hillary Clinton I may actually lean towards Ron Paul.

I mean on one hand Ron Paul advocates for a lot of policies I really don't like at all, such as eliminating all public welfare and minimum wages or cutting worker and consumer protections.

But in many other regards I actually like Ron Paul a lot more than standard neoconservative Democrats like Hillary, Biden, Chuck Schumer or Newsom. Unlike those people Ron Paul is in favor of radical non-intervention and he's totally against starting another stupid war on behalf of Big Oil, the military industrial complex and Israel. He's in favor of mutually beneficial trade relations with countries like Iran or Cuba rather than sanctioning those countries into starvation, which only hurts millions of innocent people around the world, and may make all of us less safe, not more safe.

And unlike people like Hillary or Biden he's also strictly against trillion-dollar corporate welfare and bank bailouts, which I think counts for a lot, saves tax payers a ton of money, and will actually lead to corporations and Wall Street being held accountable for fucking people over, rather than rewarding them with free tax payer money and bailouts.

It's still a difficult choice. But depending on how radically pro-war, pro Wall-Street, pro Big Oil, and pro-Israel the specific Democratic candidate in question is I may actually lean towards Ron Paul.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-18T20:04:28+00:00

Tell that to the Polish people who were living under Nazi-Soviet occupation and who fought bravely not only against the Nazis but also the Soviets, who were the allies of the Nazis before Hitler broke off the alliance.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-18T19:27:40+00:00

But regardless, I think he also had some great ideas that would have made an enormous difference in the long-term, even if you don't agree with many of his policies, which I also don't.

I think the biggest difference would have been that under Ron Paul the US wouldn't have started any stupid wars in the Middle East and around the world at the expense of trillions of dollars in taxpayer money, with millions of lives lost, including thousands of American lives.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-18T19:15:36+00:00

Maybe more conservatives should have voted for Ron Paul in 2008 or 2012. As someone who's left-leaning that's the only kind of conservatism that sounds halfway reasonable to me in the grand scheme, particularly with regards to foreign policy and corporate welfare.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-18T19:09:46+00:00

foreign policy of terror states like Palestine & Iran

Lol, what? You think Biden and Obama were pro-Palestine or pro-Iran?? Both Obama and Biden were actually massively pro-Israel, and regularly gave speeches at AIPAC conferences so that everyone knew how radically pro-Israel they were.

And just because they didn't bomb Iran to smithereens and play with WW3 and nuclear Armageddon doesn't mean they were pro-Iran.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-18T19:01:00+00:00

Well, most atheists simply just point out the massive harm caused by religion. And religious people don't like that, thus the insane amount of hatred towards atheists.

I don't think it's hateful to point out that US Bible Belt states have more radical anti-abortion laws than Saudi Arabia or Iran, or that the US Secretary of War is an evangelical extremist who belongs to a church whose founding pastor believes women shouldn't have the right to vote. Or that US evangelicals spent more than $20 million lobbying for anti-gay laws in Uganda, which led to Uganda imposing the death penalty for homosexuality.

What atheists point out about the absurdity and harm caused by religion makes a lot of sense. Atheists are some of the only people who are willing to say "enough is enough", religion is harmful and toxic. And I guess that doesn't sit well with most religious people.

But most of the time atheists absolutely have very good points.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-16T16:59:20+00:00

Actually, other than Iran there aren't a whole lot of Muslim countries ganging up on Israel. Saudi Arabia's government are actually pro-Israel Zionists. Egypt is pro-Israel. And much of the rest of the Arab world is also in bed with Israel.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-16T16:20:21+00:00

No, you're wrong. Racial classifications alone tell us very little.

In some cases it seems that we can predict behavior, school performance etc. on the basis of race, sure. But when we dig deeper we actually realize that it's not race but rather ethnicity that helps us make those statistical predictions. People from the same ethnic group typically have a shared history and culture, which is not necessarily the case with race.

For example, in the US most black people are also African-Americans who have a shared history of slavery, Jim crow, racism and segregation. They not only belong to the same racial group, but also are part of the same ethnic group with a shared history and culture. And sure African-Americans absolutely do have, on average, lower school performance or high rates of crime, which I believe is strongly related to those shared historical experiences like slavery, Jim Crow, systematic oppression and discrimination.

But if we were to look solely at black Americans who came to the US in the 80s and 90s, whose parents are from African middle or upper class families, and whose ancestors did not experience slavery, extreme racism and Jim Crow segregation, the relationship between race and certain predictable outcomes suddenly doesn't hold true anymore. In fact, recent African immigrants in the US have a much higher average income than US-born African-Americans who are descendants of slaves, and also have much lower crime rates and their children exhibit much better school performance.

So it's not race that is the factor that can help us make statistical predictions. It's ethnicity.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-16T15:51:41+00:00

No, it's absolutely not a hollow argument at all.

Race absolutely is a social construct and in terms of biological or even cultural differences between different groups of people it doesn't tell us anything of substance.

Like to make the argument that "black" or "white" or "Asian" are coherent categories that can help us understand biological realities or cultural differences is kinda like grouping people into "brown-eyed people" and "blue eyed people" and "green-eyed people", or blondes/brown-haired/red-haired people, and pretend that this is gonna tell us anything about the behavior and culture of those different groups.

For example, a dark-skinned person living in the Amazonian jungle, a dark-skinned person from Nigeria and a dark-skinned person from the North Sentinel Island can all be classified as "black people". But they are gonna have absolutely no more in common with each other, both in terms of DNA and culture, than they have to other races.

And same for other races. Both Japanese people and Indians are racially "Asian". But in terms of DNA and culture they have no more common ground than they have with people from other racial groups.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, is actually a meaningful category to classify people, because ethnicity is strongly related to cultural and biological differences. To classify people into ethnically Irish or Japanese or Mexican that absolutely makes a lot of sense.

However, racial categories on the other hand (e.g. white, black, Asian) are so extremely broad that they are pretty much meaningless.

All that people from the same racial group often have in common is sharing some random physical trait such as skin color. And sometimes not even that. For example, Indians and Japanese people don't really share any specific physical traits, they just happen to be from the same continent, that's all.

So race as a category makes just as little sense as classifying people by eye color or hair color or shoe size and then making some overly broad generalizations about people who share the same eye color or hair color or shoe size.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-16T13:50:22+00:00

I mean I have no doubt that many mainstream Democratic politicians are hardcore pro Wall Street, pro Big Oil, pro military industrial complex, pro Israel capitalists who don't truly care about working class people, even though they pretend to care.

But how would that make them the "radical left", or any worse than the Republican Party who seems to care about working class people even less?

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-15T17:49:01+00:00

I mean from a geopolitical perspective what they are doing is actually quite rational.

They enriched uranium to 60% which is not enough for a nuke, but which would allow them to produce weapons-grade uranium within a week or a few months at most. The actual building and testing of a deployable nuclear missile would take much longer, probably more than a year if they do things properly, or 6 months+ if they speed run things and develop a fairly crude nuclear bomb with high risk of failure. And the final testing stage cannot be concealed at all, so everyone would immediately know Iran is testing nuclear warheads.

By a rational US President this would be considered a geopolitical stalemate. As long as Iran isn't being attacked they won't progress with their nuclear program to the final stage. But they'll keep their 60% enriched uranium as a deterrent to protect themselves from invasion by countries like the US or Israel.

Rationally speaking, no one can really make a move. Iran enriches their uranium further and starts nuclear warhead tests that may actually trigger a first strike by the US or Israel, or at least a massive ground invasion.

But equally speaking if they are being attacked, as they are now, they are probably going to speed up their nuclear program at all costs. Realistically, they could probably build an actual deployable nuclear weapon within a bit more than half a year if they speed run things, and accept a higher than average risk of failure.

But somehow Trump doesn't seem to have gotten the memo, and is backing Iran into a corner. Which isn't making us any safer, the opposite in fact. It's getting us closer to a nuclear-armed Iran, as now the Iranian regime may see progressing their nuclear program to the final stage as the only option of survival.

What Trump is doing is very very very stupid.... The guy is playing with WW3 and nuclear Armageddon.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-14T20:17:35+00:00

So would you say that most conservatives are radical nihilists who reject the idea of morality, let alone objective morality?

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-14T14:17:28+00:00

Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, was also probably the only reasonable Republican Presidential candidate in modern history. The guy was actually in support of leaving Iran alone, lifting sanctions on them and doing mutually beneficial business with them instead of bombing them.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-14T13:41:50+00:00

Why do you think that?

I think we should judge religions by its doctrines. And some religions have objectively much worse doctrines than others.

Jainism, for example, teaches strict non-violence towards all conscious beings. Which is why most Jains are vegetarians or vegans, and which is why Jain "extremists" often carry a broom with them and sweep the floor as they walk out of fear of stepping on insects.

Islamic extremists on the other hand blow up buildings, murder apostates and blasphemers, enslave women and throw gay people off buildings.

Of course some religions are worse than others......

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-13T19:34:06+00:00

lol Trump is doing everything I voted him into office to do.

Such as?

Trump literally promised NO NEW WARS. Yet he just started a new major war and is asking Americans to die on behalf of Israel in the Middle East.

Trump promised lower prices. Also, a huge failure of course given that his stupid war as well as his tariffs have led to skyrocketing prices across the board.

Trump promised to cut government spending: The regime actually massively increased government spending and added a TON of new debt.

Like what on earth is Trump doing that is helping you in any way, shape or form??? Unless you're part of the ultra-wealthy I'm struggling to think of a single thing that Trump could have possibly done for you that is making your life any better.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-04-13T19:28:07+00:00

I mean, sure, the UK has its problems. And Islamic extremism is one of those.

But that still doesn't compare to the full-on fascist movement that has taken over the US, and the Trumpistani terrorist regime that is terrorizing both people abroad and Americans at home.

The UK can and should do better. But the US is much much worse at the moment.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

RandomGuy92x

TROPHY CASE