we should instead ban advertising
This is the solution. If companies cannot profit off of their platforms, they will not have them any longer. Literally just ban all advertising. Amend all free-speech laws in all countries to define speech as rights of individual citizens, with corporations explicitly excluded.
I would support a third party normally,
"normally" like what year? What year in your entire voting life have you actually voted third-party on a national level?
I guess if you don't see any difference between a government supported telecom company and a company that exists in different nation that has a necessarily hostile relationship to the local government, then sure they are comparable.
Well the destruction of Israel would be a net positive, and forcing the world to have less oil is also good for humanity. Is this the optimal outcome for humanity as a whole? No. But assuming the Mad King executes his plan to attack Iran, if the outcome described by the article comes true it's a net-good. Also consider that Trump will not do anything that is good intentionally, so we just have to look at the silver-lining, and if the destruction of Israel is part of that silver-lining then it's the best case scenario and unintentionally the best thing Trump has ever done.
World war? Nah, no one gives a shit about Iran.
Hundreds or Thousands in the middle east dead? Just another Monday. The only difference is where these hundreds or thousands are being killed. Today it's Gaza, if it's Iran nothing really changes. Destruction of Tel Aviv/Israel would certainly be exceptional, but the world would drastically improve in literally all ways if Israel were destroyed and the US were humbled.
Of course since I am not the President of the United States I have zero influence in what the mad king does, but the framing of the article doesn't present much downside, and more importantly isn't convincing for why the US shouldn't be attacking Iran.
Even the framing of the article is presumptuous. "Iran is more prepared then any previous adversary." More prepared then 1990's Iraq? The 4th most powerful Army in history being bent over in less than a week? Seriously? That's a pretty bold claim, and the article fails to support it. In 2003 when Bush and Cheney and Company decided to revisit Iraq, it was only a disaster for the Iraqi people.
https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/oef/byCategory
Believe it or not, if that is the toll of causalities, that is more then acceptable for literally everyone who wants war with Iran and the consequences for the Iranian government and people would be much, MUCH worse.
If you are against US action in Iran, which you should be, this article isn't compelling. The litany of losses that the article claims is only if you don't understand the true purpose of the US foreign policy since the 50's. The people benefiting from Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq 1 and 2, emerged enormously wealthy. The presidents in-charge of those initial wars were all reelected. The contemporary Secretary of States all become respected elder statesmen, were board members of NGO's, lived the rest of their lives in luxury and deference from the existing world-order. A United States "loss" is meaningless. The objective was never subjugation of the enemy nation. And most importantly the US as a country hasn't lost anything.
Until Trump, the US was still arguably top of the world. While cracks are becoming apparent, there is still a lot of wealth to be extracted, a lot of grifters that will get paid and most importantly a lot of real projected power that will cause huge amounts of casualties and suffering to whatever nation "the eye of sauron" decides to target. There are litany of reasons to be against the US invading Iran, but Iran isn't a factor in them.
Well obviously the sub contractor has friend who was sub contracting for the shell company that manages government contracts for their buddy 5star General who worked at the pentagon and died shortly after they green-lit the construction of the carrier, didn't do a good job. But what can you do? There is money to be made, and at the end of the day the functionality of what the contract specified isn't a requirement for getting paid.
So what I'm hearing is that the absolute best thing Trump can do is attack Iran? All those consequences sound fucking great to me. Especially cutting off 20% of the world supply of oil. Completely obliterating Israel sounds great too. Where is the downside?
You will never get to vote for change if you always accept what you are given. Every single election since I started paying attention to politics has been "the most important election in my lifetime." So with your thinking there is never a time to vote for your values, only the values Capitalists have enshrined in both candidates by choosing which candidates of both parties are "electable."
Hell even if climate change wasn't a huge exasperating issue, ending capitalism would still be a good thing to do.
Ending homelessness = Ending Capitalism
Ending World Hunger = Ending Capitalism
Ending Arms proliferation = Ending Capitalism
So many knock-on benefits to ending Capitalism.
I'm curious into what the outcome is. Other then the refusal to believe he committed suicide, what other evidence is there he was murdered? Is there a suspect? Was he seen with anyone earlier? Did the spectre of white supremacy manifest into a physical form and lynch this guy?
Her issue is she’s an pro Israel, hollow corporatist. Her outrage is pure kayfabe.
Fuck! Are you sure?
https://www.trackaipac.com/states/texas
Looks like no money from AIPAC (yet) but she is pro-israel.
I've heard this postulated since Bush Jr. but no. Christian fundamentalist are a useful voting bloc, they have influence on cultural issues that don't matter if you are trying to make money. (LBGT/Abortion etc) but war in Central America, Africa, South East Asia, all happen without them.