Forbes sometimes publishes lists of good billionaires:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardjchang/2023/04/05/in-memoriam-these-billionaires-died-over-the-past-year/

They’re called the apartheid defense league for a reason

A community of adherents of a political ideology which is fringe and marginal, and at the same time responsible for Trump’s victory. Very dangerous individuals.

Infighting would imply harris is a part of the left. She’s comfortably right wing by any measure. And there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a valid political stance to take (not mine, but again, this is fine). Calling leftists disagreeing with harris leftist infighting is like calling the cold war leftist infighting.

No, the democrats will embrace transphobia the next election cycle so as to unsuccessfully court the right and alienate the left (a strategy which netted them a solid 1 out of the past three elections, which is 1 more than Jill Stein). This cycle they went after undocumented immigrants.

In general, I think making the right to vote conditional on some sort of intellectual test (which raising the voting age is, in some sense) suffers from at least three problems:

Firstly, my preference for democracy does not just stem from efficacy, but also from a moral angle. People should have a say in how their lives are run, even if they don’t satisfy someone’s criterion for intellectual eligibility.

Secondly, even from an efficacy angle there’s problems with it, and we have historical examples of this. Literacy tests have been used around the globe to effectively bar minorities from voting. E.g. black people in the United States, and indigenous peoples in Latin America. As a result, the needs of those populations were ignored, which I would consider a failure in efficacy.

And finally, literacy is highly subjective. Maybe today the government comes up with a test that you agree with (age 26 and up), but maybe a future government adjusts the test to a point where you disagree (only after retirement, after you’ve lived to see most aspects of life, and are therefore most fit to intelligently cast your vote).

Does this mean I believe in extending suffrage to five year olds? No. I believe there’s a balance to strike, and it’s not a black and white issue. But as the history of literacy tests shows, this is an area to tread incredibly carefully, and I get why people were so quick to downvote you.

Regarding the first one, it really helps to read the case South Africa filed with the ICJ. It’s only about 80 pages, but it’s filled to the brim with evidence of “super evil battle plans” as you call them. You should really inform yourself on this conflict, it’s pretty significant.

It’s a big club and you aren’t in it

So basically taking a page from the US playbook?

We have some evidence for number 1 already. When he was campaigning, his messaging was progressive, and he actually referred to himself as a progressive plenty of times. Then, when Israel started the genocide, he became the hawkiest of hawks and claimed that he never said he was a progressive. The guy is a prime example of a career politician.

Thank you for your detailed reply! It also helps explain the cynicism in the other two replies a bit.

What’s agile?

“I’m gonna stop using GNU/Linux because I don’t like Richard Stallman”

It’s valid to dislike the devs (I disagree, I’ve found them nothing but courteous, and have read their posts with interest), but it’s ridiculous to exclude their software from this list.

Are you purposefully playing the perfect rube? Exploited immigrants are not the bad guy here, the owning class is.

If only Kamala had won, then the Biden administration wouldn’t be doing this

You can add Libya to the list. Slave trade has been booming there since Gaddafi was forcibly ousted.

EDIT: lot of downvotes, no replies. I know I talk a lot about gaza in this comment, but that’s just because that’s something I know about. I’m way less informed about the Ukraine conflict. Ultimately this comment is just asking for what you believe and why you believe it, read the final sentence first.

I kind of tapped out on paying attention to this conflict, I’m already losing enough sleep over the genocide in Gaza.

With the conflict in Gaza, my opinion is that a ceasefire would be best, followed by an abolition of the apartheid state by means similar to how the one in SA was abolished (forced by global divestment like that enforced by 1986 US anti-apartheid act, etc). On a moral level, this solution feels unsatisfying. So much land has been stolen from the Palestinians, and part of me wants them to fight and win it all back, so advocating for a peaceful resolution hurts. But I also know that realistically, continuing to pursue armed conflict will only result in more Palestinian deaths, and more loss of territory, so I reluctantly join protests in favor of a ceasefire.

I realize that the conflicts are different. Russia is much more powerful than Israel, the Palestinian ethnic cleansing has been going on for decades, etc. So I don’t know what to feel about the Ukraine conflict. The pro-peace POV I’ve already heard. Ceasefire, concede Crimea to Russia, Ukraine becomes non-NATO zone, and the killing stops. For the pro-war people in the Ukraine conflict, what are you hoping for, and what facts make you feel this hope is realistic?

It’s always good to hear what the experts have to say on these matters.

He rebuilt the economy? What the fuck are they on about? Inflation is crazy high, there’e layoffs like every other day, and 60% of the country still lives paycheck to paycheck. Does huffpo think we all have our heads up our asses?

Franz Ferdinand was not the cause of WWI. WWI was caused by numerous geopolitical, economic, and societal conditions that all drove us towards it. Can I tell you what those conditions were and how exactly they led to WWI? No, because I’m an uneducated idiot who knows next to nothing about history. But at least I’m not dumb enough to believe that killing one guy led to the killing of 40 million others.