Skiluros

I try to. I will admit, it can be difficult.

Anything specific you are referring to?

It’s honestly too bad he is not in his 40s. At the risk of being overly presumptuous, I will speculate that he would be a good leader for the US and the “free world”.

As someone not from the US (but who has lived/worked/studied in the US), Sanders seems like the only member of the US upper house that is willing to speak honestly and engage in haram speech that goes against local provincial orthodoxy.

I was particularly intrigued by an article that claimed that Sanders was the only “outsider” in the US upper house and that all other senators were more or less on friendly terms (with the implication being that their polemics are a ruse). Unfortunately I can’t find the article.

Tim Apple: “It’s so vibrant and so dynamic here … I think China is really opening up.”

I do follow this issue, but how is this US-internal topic relevant to the fediverse community?

I say this as someone who opposes oligarchs and has a rather critical attitude towards local perceptions of corruption in the US.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2021/08/the-irrational-fear-of-russia

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/03/is-russian-brutality-toward-civilians-actually-unique

Fucker doesn’t even speak russian or Ukrainian and has almost certainly never lived in russia or Ukraine (I would be surprised if he has even visited). And yet he speaks of “Russo-Orientalism”? Come on…

His magazine also directly parrots russian propaganda:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/10/why-did-russia-launch-this-catastrophic-war

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/05/how-the-war-in-ukraine-can-be-ended

As someone who lives in Ukraine (I am Ukrainian), has lived in russia and the US and speaks the local languages, his takes are horrendous.

I do hope one day, Nathan Robinson, Anatol Lieven and Thomas Moller-Nielsen meet the same fate as “Donbas cowboy” Russell Bentley.

Bentley, 64, was a fixture in the low-level Russian incursion in Ukraine dating back to 2014. Calling himself the Donbas Cowboy, Bentley became a popular figure on Russian propaganda networks for his criticism of the U.S. government.

Bentley, whose military call sign was Texas, went missing in Donetsk in April.

According to the Investigative Committee, Vansyatsky, Agaltsev, and Iordanov tortured Bentley on April 8, and he died shortly afterward.

Vansyatsky and Agaltsev are suspected of blowing up a car with Bentley’s body in it and ordering Bazhin to get rid of what was left of his remains.

Don’t get me wrong, I recognize it’s a solid instance and I am going to continue engaging in their communities.

Just the admin reaction was a bit strange. I think mods/admins need to try and take a neutral position as much as possible (exceptions notwithstanding).

Why nearly? They are just as bad, if not worse.

That thread is wild. I had no clue slrpunk was like that (I only go to some non-political communities on slrpunk).

This is a bit a of tangent, but I’ve read some of the author’s takes on russia and China (and briefly discussed the articles with him on twitter) and he has no clue what he is talking about. The “articles” are sophomoric takes that clearly show a lack of knowledge or interest in understanding anything.

He might have a better understanding of US internal politics, but his confidently ignorant approach (with respect to russia and China) does not inspire confidence.

Is this Matt Walsh fellow genuine in his beliefs or is this just a finance/brand-building exercise? I am not from the US. A quick look through his YT channel and overall structure and presentation of his polemics suggests a strong tendency towards demagoguery.

It’s all in your [their] hands.

Whether we will or not is a matter of what America is like.

I am not making a judgment call here, just an observation.

Agreed. For some reason, I don’t like their US coverage. It’s not biased per se, but like you mentioned it often doesn’t click (not American, but I lived in North America for a decade).

It’s as if they can’t figure out whether they want to report as outsiders looking in or as if they are reporting from within the US. Better to stick to one framing. I actually prefer an “outsider looking in” perspective as some of the US-based internal-focused reporting is not for me.

As weird as it sounds, I do like NYT for US coverage (from the US) and I tend to avoid their coverage on Europe.

While I generally agree with the points raised in the article, I have to say there is a certain level of irony seeing this particular text in Al Jazeera (with them being funded by Qatar).

I do like their coverage of Africa, it seems informative and relatively balanced (perhaps I just don’t know any better English language sources).

I lean towards agreeing with their coverage of India, but the Qatari connection makes me cautious.

They are pretty bad on Ukraine. Giving coverage to faux-opposition russian imperialists and having a somewhat cavalier attitude that they do not demonstrate for example with Gaza.

That being said, for all their faults they can do good work, just got to remember their Qatari connection.

Without understanding the particulars of US legal matters, it seems to me that it is pretty obvious that the US judiciary is deeply corrupt. Maybe not in a day to day manner, but in a broader “subservient to oligarchs” sense.

In my country, we also have supreme court members getting bribed by oligarchs and judiciary groupings that act to protect their interests while working as a for hire team for the highest bidding oligarchs (similar to the American “Federalist Society”). Sure, in the US the whole process is done with a bigger focus on PR; lot’s of pomp and word salad about “interpretation of the constitution”, but I personally did not find that in any way convincing when I lived in the US. Seemed like a ruse for plausible deniability and keeping the plebs from asking too many uncomfortable questions.

The bigger question, that I was discussing with my American friend, is why the main US opposition party (that claims to oppose of excesses of the far right) does not take a serious approach to corruption in the judiciary. Specifically we were discussing the supreme court succession late in Trump’s 1st term. There is almost a surrealist, comedic quality to the whole thing. It is unlikely a political force can get anywhere with such a myopic approach.