A Trump defeat could have been guarantee long ago by Biden by simply not sending Weapons and Ammo to Israel.
This tram has already been running over Palestinians and Lebanese for over a year and it's Biden to keeps sending it down that line branch.
Both the framing of this as a false dichotomy and the claim that the power to switch the line is in the hands of common people - all of which are the core of Democrat Propaganda at the moment - have always been lies.
As usual with these propaganda "memes" the situation is misportrayed as one were the power is in the hands of common Americans, when the power has always been in the hands of the likes of Biden and Harris and who have repeatedly chosen to give more weapons to the Nazis, whilst knowing that it increases the risk of a Trump victory.
Even the kind of human being that only cares about "what's in it for me" and "is relaxed about the mass murder of babies" should be able to see that the Trump defeat they desire could have been guarantee almost a year ago by Biden simply stopping the sending of weapons and ammo to Israel.
There is a real possibility that the person who would be best for Palestine would be Trump simply because he doesn't follow through on what he says and is too incompetent when he does.
It's a very sad state of affairs that the US Presidential Candidate that might be the least Nazi-supporting one is Trump, not because of his ideology not being Fascist but because he's incompetent, inconsistent and has a tendency for non-interventionism.
You have it backwards: going after the natural voters of the other side in a two-party system is the riskiest thing you can do because the other party has a massive advantage with those voters which is an historical track record of telling them what they want to hear and them voting for it - rightwingers trust them on Rightwing subjects and are used to voting for them.
Even if (and it's a massive massive if) a party succeeds at it once due to the party on the other side having deviated too much from its traditional ideology, all it takes for the party on the other side is to "get back to its roots" to recover most of those lost votes and subsequently win, whilst meanwhile the leftmost party that moved to the right has created for itself an obstacle in their own "going back to its roots" in the form of a section of the electorate which feels they were betrayed.
Sure, they'll eventually get it back if they themselves quickly "go back to their roots", but it will take several electoral cycles.
Further, if that gap remains too long on the Left even in a two party system it would create room for a third to grow, starting by local elections, then places like Congress, then Senate and eventually even the Presidency.
One of of the key ways in which First Past The Post maintains a Power-Duopoly is because growing a party enough to challenge the rest in multiple electoral circles takes time and the duopoly parties will try to stop it (generally by changing back their policies to appeal to the core voters of that new Party).
The US itself once had the Whig Party as one of the power duopoly parties and that exists no more.
The Democrats abandoning the Left is not a stable configuration for them and carries both the risk that the Rightwing electorate sees them as fake and the Leftwing electorate feels betrayed, and now they're stuck in the middle with a reduced vote.
Whilst the first paragraph does make some sense, it presumes that in such a situation the Republicans would not conclude it's the style of the candidate rather than his ideas that caused the rout. That might be a little optimist considering that the traditional Republicans' were just as far right economically before and almost as right in Moral issues, but they had a different style of candidate (remember Reagan?).
It might also be a little optimist to expect an absolute walloping of anybody, Republican or Democrat.
That said, it's a valid scenario, though it relies on very low probability events.
The second paragraph is inconsistent with every single thing the Democrats have done in their pre-electoral propaganda, from the whole "vote us or get Trump" (something which wouldn't scare the Right) to the raft of pre-election promises on Left-wing subjects like student debt forgiveness or tightening regulations on giants such as Telecoms a little bit. If they really thought they could win with only votes stolen from the Right, they would be making promises which appeal to the Right, not the Left.
Besides, the whole idea that Rightwing voters would go for the less-Rightwing party rather than the more-Rightwing party is hilarious: why go for the copy if you can get the real deal?
From what I've seen in other countries were Center-Left Parties totally dropped their appeal to the Left and overtly went to appeal to the Right, they got pummeled because the Maths don't add up and, as I said above, Rightwing votes will choose the "genuine article" over the "wannabes".
It's not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
Three points:
In summary:
Of course they're not the same!
The Republicans now support Fascism at home, whilst the Democrats so far only support Fascism abroad.
Yeah, Welsh is even more special ...
Yeah, well, the most racist Western states (such as the US, UK and Germany) all support the Last White Colonialist State in the World against the "violent" locals who "don't have Western values" (i.e. are not White).
If there's one thing this has shown is that the power elites in some Western countries still have the very same values as they did back in the late 1900s (which in the case of Germany is the same kind of thinking that fueled Nazism).
Anti-muslim Racism has been pretty common and accepted in the West since even before 9/11 (though it definitelly exploded in the aftermath of it) plus Jews are seen as Whites Of A Different Religion (it's not for nothing that Zionists since the very beginning constantly repeat the "Israel has Western values" mantra).
So for those people the entire reading of the situation, judgment of the actions of the participants and definition of what's an acceptable or unaccetable response is anchored on what their anti-Muslim and pro-White prejudices tell them is the character of everybody in each of the sides involved (or, in simple terms, who are the "good guys" for whom everything is justifiable and the "bad guys" whose actions are always evil).
This is why so many Liberals ended up siding with American Fascists in their defense of an ethno-Fascist (i.e. Nazi-like) regime commiting ethnic Genocide - they too aways judged people based on their etnicity, differing only from one another in the list of "presumed good" and "presumed bad" ethnicities, and in this specific case both shared "Jews" in their list of "good ethnicity" (the Fascists because they saw them as Westerners - i.e. White - and the Liberals because they saw them as Victims following the Holocaust, a view heavilly propagandized by Zionists) and "Muslims" in the list of "bad ethnicity" (curiously both because they're not White, and both via the cultural differences between them and "Westerners", though Fascists and Liberals disliked different elements the culture of "Muslims" - I use quotes because whilst they see it as a single culture, it's not, not even close).
That's a good point.
Ever since I've became more aware of those I've found myself doing similar kind of "disarming" of such falacies when I notice I'm using them.
My point it's that it generally feels like swimming against the current.
I'd say a lot of those things are the result of cognitive shortcuts.
It kinda makes sense to make a lot if not most decisions by relying of such shortcuts (hands up anybody who whilst not having a skin problem will seek peer-reviewed studies when chosing what kind of soap to buy) because they reduce the time and energy expediture, sometimes massivelly so.
Personally I try to "balance" shortcuts vs actual research (in a day to day sense, rather than Research) by making the research effort I will put into a purchase proportional to the price of the item in question (and also taking in account the downsides of a missjudgement: a cheap bungee-jumping rope is still well worth the research) - I'll invest more or less time into evaluationg it and seeking independent evaluations on it depending on how many days of work it will take to be able to afford it - it's not really worth spending hours researching something worth what you earn in 10 minutes of your work if the only downside is that you lose that money but it's well worth investing days into researching it when you're buying a brand new car or a house.
What's interesting is how, even when knowing these biases, one has a tendency to often have and display at least some of them.
(At least, that's the case for me)
The self-proclaimed anti-racists were never against racism, they just had different lists of ubermenschen and untermenschen that the traditional racists.
If one is running around with the idea that people's worth is defined by their ethnicity and that one can presume they're oppressors or oppressed based on that alone they're still a racist and still operating on the same fundamental prejudices about the worth of people as the Nazis.
Because of how the Zionists in Israel worked so much and so successfully to entrenched the idea that Israel represents all Jews, an ethnic group which the new-age-racists collectively deemed "victims" and "good people" (remember, the racism is classifying people on their race, not being positive or negative in your classification: after all, the Nazis too deemed all Arians as better than the rest) what the Israeli Genocide did was put in focus the racism of the Racists passing themselves as anti-Racists when those who they believe represent one of the "good races" started openly doing the very same kind of ultra violent racism as the Nazis.
People who genuinely were against racism reviewed this stance whilst those who still operate on the same racist principles as the Nazis - that people's worth is defined by their ethnicity - came up with all sorts of excuses in defense of "the good race", very much like Nazi supporters defended the Arian race because it was a white race like theirs.
Basically Liberals made it plain as day they're just another kind of Fascist who support all other kinds of Fascism unless they themselves are its target.
Just like somebody giving weapons and ammo to the Ku Klux Klan whilst they're actively using them to kill afro-americans is a fucking extreme racist KKK supporter, so is anybody giving weapons and ammo to a white ethno-Fascist state actively genociding people of another ethnicity because of their ethnicity is a fucking extreme racist ethno-Fascist (the same variant of Fascism as Nazism) supporter.
Unless you're a fucking racist yourself who judges actions differently depending on the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators, those two are equivalent.
So any self-proclaimed anti-Racist liberal supporting Israel with actual weapons and ammo is not only by their own actions the worst, most raciste violent and genocidal kind of Fascist there is - one similar to Nazism, no less - they're also a massive hypocrite.
So yeah, based on the leaders they vote for Americans are by association the modern Nazi supporters.
Any process unless specifically adjusted to compensate for it (and the adjustment itself is a distortion of it and has secondary effects) will be affected by the environment it is working in.
So specifically for Capitalism and the practice of Science under it, funding and the societal pressure on everybody including scientists to have more money - as wealth is a status symbol in that environment - are he main pathways via which Capitalism influences the practice of Science.
It's incredibly Reductionist and even anti-Scientific to start from the axiom that environment does not at all influence the way Science is practiced (hence Capitalism is unrelated to Science) and then just make an entire argument on top of such a deeply flawed assumption
In London you can literally spot where the subway stations are from a map of rent prices since prices within an area go up the closer a place is to the tube.
You see, politicians are all just impotent victims and there is nothing at all they can do to control rents and cool down house price bubbles and their inaction (or even actions that help stoke the prices up) have nothing to do with them putting first and foremost the further enrichment of those who have the most riches /s
If only.
I live in Portugal which has a similar massive house price bubble, especially in the main cities of Lisbon and Porto, and the "investors", foreign or otherwise, seldom buy run down places to renovate, much less actually build anything: there's no need to do it when the market is so tight and the bubble so massive that merelly buying anything and sitting on it (not even rent it) will yield you 14% a year, and way more than that if you AirBnB them (realestate "investors" don't put their houses in the normal rental market when they can make 4x as much from short term lets to turists).
What you describe might've happenned back when prices were just slowly trickling up and there was no "make money fast" scheme of turning habitation spaces into mini-hotels so "investors" had to actually activelly add value to the dwellings they bought in order to extract a better profit, but nowadays thanks to most governments doing all that they can take to pump up house prices - as it makes GDP figures go up plus most top politicians are at the right wealth level to themselves be housing "investors" - simple ownership of such assets yields great returns without lifiting a finger and in touristic places renting them via AirBnB can double or triple that yield with litterally no more investment than having the place painted and adding some IKEA furniture with no need for paying for and spending time in proper renovations.
Somebody giving weapons to the KKK whilst they're going on a rampage against Afro-Americans would be rightly deemed KKK.
So somebody giving weapons to ethno-Fascists (i.e. the same kind of Fascist as Nazis) whilst they're going on a rampage against the ethnicity they describe as "human animals" is rightly deemed an ethno-Fascist.
Unless you're a Racist yourself who thinks the ethnicity of the victims and perpetrators involved somehow changes the judgment on the situation, it's perfectly valid to conclude that the Democrat leadership are, by their own actions, not just Fascists but pretty much a modern kind of Nazi.
I do agree however that the previous post is structured as just bunch of slogans.