this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
83 points (98.8% liked)

chapotraphouse

13958 readers
788 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

… would never let Tony take out a hit on Iran

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] propter_hog@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

She would have definitely continued to empower Israel to do it for her, though. We'd still be marching to war with Iran under her. And the humanitarian crisis in Palestine would still be happening. Nothing would fundamentally be different, except the people of america would be mostly asleep to it.

[–] SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago

Nothing would fundamentally be different

The Democratic Party slogan. the-democrat

[–] corvidenjoyer@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] HexaSnoot@hexbear.net 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Whenever Contrapoints gives a liberal take it has such big "Yass girl!" energy.

[–] reaper_cushions@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago

I don't think this particular scenario would have unfolded under a Harris presidency, but for a bit of a contradictory reason: Israel began striking Iran to throw a wrench into the renegotiation of the nuclear deal with the US (and the US government let it happen, these fucking rubes). Kamala, however, was far more hawkish on Iran and would never in her life entered these negotiations in the first place, thus not prompting this particular escalation to occur to begin with. Would Kamala have willingly and happily supported any strikes on Iran by Israel under any pretext, however flimsy? Absolutely. Whould this particular scenario have arisen? I don't think so.

[–] whiskers165@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago

Al Gore would have invaded Iraq