People call something a “manifesto” when they want to imply that it’s a long rambling text written by a crazy person.

This situation has me pondering 2 hypotheticals.

1. How long until people start posting the names of individuals perceived as traitors (eg the McSnitch, the journalists shilling for Thomson, the politicians leading the charge against Mangione, etc)?

2. Can he realistically be tried at all? A broad cross section of people are really supportive of Mangione. We’re in such a weird timeline that I could potentially imagine groups like Black Block and Proud Boys standing side-by-side on this one.

Couldn’t you say the same for the Republicans, or any party for that matter? ie, “Join them and if enough people like you join them they’ll change.”

Realistically, some new political operator isn’t going to get any relevant positions. And nobody with the relevant positions will listen to a new political operator.

That may work in theory but it’s basically saying to create a new Demcratic party from within.

What would joining consist of?

Register as Democrats? Vote whoever they tell you to vote for?

What would “in” consist of?

Democrats had both houses and the Oval Office in 2021. The Democrats were as “in” as they can reasonably expect to get unless we want to go back to 2011 when the Democrats had all that and a supermajority.

What was stopping him from doing something now? Who forced him to send more arms to Israel?

And how is the Democrats ability to do the right thing inhibited in any way by people complaining about a CEO supporting genocide?

These arguments sound a lot like when my 10 year old tells me that they’ll stop watching video games and do their homework as soon as I stop nagging them. That’s nonsense. They do their homework when I take the laptop away and tell them they can’t have it back until the homework is done.

In what way are the “Democrats and liberals” changing the situation from the inside?

Biden just approved another $680m arms package. That should be condemned, not celebrated. Acts that support this genocide should also be condemned, rather than celebrated.

It’s completely disingenuous to refer to it as just “visiting family.”

He was the one who decided to post a photo op in Tel Aviv. His previous posts make it clear that he knew he was doing so right next to an active genocide. According to the article, pro-Israelis interpreted it as an endorsement of Israeli policy.

Reasonable people still have boundaries. Reasonable people don’t “hold their nose” at genocide. Reasonable people stop believing in empty promises when every Israeli atrocity is rewarded with praise and unwavering support.

If any part of the left is OK with genocide the right is already winning and the only hope is to split with them.

It’s the timing.

Israel is currently engaged in a genocide. Some guy talking about how much they love all the beautiful things about Germany in 1942 would get down voted to hell too.

Your post completely ignore my first and main sentence.

It’s the timing that makes you an asshole, not your sentiment.

Israel is currently engaging in genocide. I know it. The UN knows it. Dogs know it.

Timing matters. I have family in Austria. I like a lot of things about Austria and I also don’t approve of a lot of things the government does and did.

If someone were to have voiced that sentiment loudly in 1942, they’d probably be an asshole.

CFR has a discussion on the aid to Ukraine https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine The accounting can be a bit confusing but it’s certainly costing the US money.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. People are objecting to the implications of a proxy war rather than the actual meaning. Past treaties, and Russian aggression have nothing to do with whether or not it’s a proxy war. The intent to strategically prevent future Russian aggression, without direct involvement, is exactly what makes it a proxy war.

There also seems to be some implication that “proxy war” means that the entire purpose of the war is to satisfy the greed of some shadowy cabal. It literally just means that there’s someone who’s helping pay without being directly involved.

That makes it even more like a proxy war.

The cold war era proxy wars were all about saving Democracy and the “free world”. We funded one war after an other under the “domino theory.” Those are the same arguments we hear today except we’ve replaced USSR with Russia and Communist with Authoritarian. The message is the same; we don’t want to get involved directly but we’ll support this country as a bastion against world domination.

Some of the aid to Ukraine is structured as loans with expedited provisions to forgive the loans and some of it is outright grants. The US made a lot of money off of the lend lease program to the UK. I haven’t ready any analysis that suggests that the US expects to make any money off of Ukraine.

This is much more like our support of Afghanistan than our support of the UK.

I see. Even with that expanded, and very subjective definition, it’s still hard to see how this doesn’t qualify.

The US has obvious strategic interests in the war. Various US and EU politicians and even Zelinsky himself keeps making that point. Ukraine obviously isn’t just fighting for to support US interests but that’s the case in every proxy war. The rich, third party nation doesn’t hire mercenaries, they fund the groups who already have an interest in fighting (like defending their home).

Zelinsky would obviously like that situation to change. If the US and EU were willing to send troops it would stop being a proxy war and Zelinsky would clearly be thrilled.

If we’re using this more detailed definition of “proxy war”, which includes intent, I’d say that Russia is not a proxy for China. The difference is that isn’t providing any donations to Russia. It’s buying, selling and lending on terms that are so favorable to China that it’s better described as carpetbagging. China, and to a lesser extent India and Iran, are all raking Russia over the coals. China also trades with Ukraine. It does so at a much lower rate than with Russia (565 vs 21,800 respectively in September) but at a higher rate than the US does with Ukraine (197 in September (source: https://oec.world/).

I’m not sure why people keep saying this.

A proxy war has nothing to do with either side being “a proxy.” It only means that one of the sides is being supported by some nations that’s not part of the war. That’s very obviously the case here.

Yes. They would. There are no “free passes” on a definition.

I get that people don’t want to associate Ukraine with the US’s horrible track record with proxy wars but the term is still just a dry political definition and the Ukraine war fits it perfectly.

It would stop being a proxy war if the US (and everyone else) cut off funding or if they actually engaged in hostilities. As long as the US (or any nation) aids Russia or Ukraine without directly participating, it’s a proxy war because that’s how proxy wars are defined.

Why is “proxy war” in scare quotes?

It’s just a war where at least one of the belligerents is supported by at least one third party. Is there anyone who doubts that the Ukraine war meets any part of that definition?

In other news, exponents make things big.

Any time you have an X>1 and a big n, X^n gets huge.

X=26 (if we ignore punctuation, spaces, and capitalization).
N=130,000

I just read that list. As near as I can tell they put a lot of words in that don’t actually promise anything helpful. Maybe I’m wrong.

Let’s make it as easy as possible to show this plan in a good light. Instead of finding one bad bullet point in that list and tearing it up, let’s see if we can find one good one.

Out of that entire list, which bullet point do you think has the best chance to actually “counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate?”

edit: grammar