Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I admit I misjudged you based solely off of the server you're from, which was rather immature of me. I imagine you've probably noticed that .ml has a high population of overt Marxist-Leninist folks on it, and is one of the hubs of leftism on Lemmy. That certainly doesn't apply to everyone who signed up on it though. lol Centrist does make a lot more sense in hindsight. I doubt you can really call yourself center-right anymore though, in the American scale at least, simply due to how crazy the right has gotten in recent years. That Overton Window jumped like 5 notches rightward on us, and left a lot of people behind. You could be a fairly typical neolib, free-trade, privatization, etc. We have a community of them here on .world, they post a fair bit of news, you might find some like-minded people if you are.

I agree wholeheartedly. The only places I've heard that extensively discussed are more serious geostrategic groups. CSIS most prominently. Most of the media plays into the more potentially ... dramatic possibilities though. Much better as clickbait I imagine, for us peons.

Regarding navy I'm not so sure. The scale of their fleet build up is very impressive. Generally, naval ships are not exactly a hot export market, especially when you're considering the larger, more advanced blue water stuff. They're pretty clearly moving towards global power projection capabilities. This does not necessarily indicate a future of aggression, though, as such a force also has a very important role in securing the sea trade that China relies so heavily on in addition to being a strong tool for diplomatic pressure. Look at how we use ours, after all. Naval power is also the sort of thing that needs to be developed over many years, you can't just spin up the institutions and knowledge base necessary to effectively deploy to another hemisphere in just a few years, it takes decades. So I see it as a long-term investment and hedge against the future.

Yeah, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Harris has been fairly successful with small dollar fundraising, so she's a little more insulated from having to rely on big doner money as a typical politician. She does have room to pivot on Gaza and implement a few tough policies if she can wrangle the legislature. That's the steepest hurdle though, and she doesn't have Biden's half century of experience and saved-up political capital in the Senate. She'll need to be bolder, I think, but the Byzantine nature of legislative wrangling is getting a bit outside my ken.

I think people tend to misunderstand East Asian cultures in general. There's a patience present in most of them, that I know anything about anyway, that is less present in West European cultures. Xi seems to exemplify this, and has seemed to be in no rush to make bold moves when they're unnecessary and carry a significant degree of uncertainty. Where a westerner sees the naval buildup and might be inclined to see it as a massive red flag, I see a man keeping his options open. Having a tool is one thing, it allows flexibility. Using that tool puts you on a course from which you cannot return. I suspect he understands this, so I don't foresee any immanent attacks on Taiwan. Especially given the rugged Taiwanese geography and having their fabs in such an easy-to-destroy state.

Hawks gonna hawk though. While our MIC isn't the major power it was in the Cold War era, it does still carry some influence. Though personally I'd be happier if we simply built our own navy up, perhaps in partnership with S Korean industry to help keep costs down, and otherwise adopted Teddy Roosevelts philosophy of "walk softly and carry a big stick". If a country wishes to partner with us, like the Philippines for instance, that's one thing, but we don't need to posture and message so aggressively. Green Berets on Taiwan was a miscalculation, for instance, even if invited imo. Taiwanese soldiers could come here for specialized training if they wished, we didn't need to deploy there.

And yeah, we're mostly all different shades of left and/or progressive on here. lol Personally I'm a progressive, and while I tend to take a detail-oriented view instead of trying to keep things exclusively at the much more accessible broad-strokes level, I think the majority of Lemmings all want the same general direction for the world. With some disagreement on how to get there. That's healthy though.

edit: Oh, and on the racism note ... yeah. ~sigh

I'm not too worried, I seldom pay too much attention to small vote tallies, especially in long back-and-forths. Longform discussions of political nuance are also minefields, especially during an election year. lol

Yeah, the tariffs irritate me a good bit. I suspect that foreign policy is largely what is driving them, but that makes me fear that more China-hawkish types are being a little too successful in pushing their opinions. I'm pretty sure they're just a geopolitical weapon though, as opposed to domestic protection. Trump wanted a trade war, he was seeking to punish China for intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, etc. Not that shit wasn't happening, but I don't think trade war was a good answer, nor do I think it's too late to reverse course instead of doubling down. Global economics aren't really my strong suit though, so I do have to admit I could be mistaken on something. Still though, I do believe that trade helps secure peace, and peace is the preferable state of affairs. So trade should be encouraged on that alone, not discouraged.

Not just minor differences, higher vs lower taxes is pretty huge. So is business regulation in this era. I have no interest in living in an actual oligarchy, by some actual council of billionaires. What the communists like to claim, but literal and overt, instead of billionaires merely having an outsized degree of influence due to the power of mass media technologies and how money can influence mass perceptions. The perceptions are still what directly controls our government, the necessary middleman between billionaires and govt that prevents them from getting everything they want. At a sufficient degree of wealth and power, they can get rid of that middle man via a transition to a different form of government, which I have no interest in seeing. Reducing their wealth is becoming a necessary precaution, we've reached a point on par with the Gilded Age, and we need to deal with our robber barons. Fortunately, we do have candidates and politicians desiring to do this. An unrealized capital gains tax would be a very heavy blow to capital. Biden pushes 35%, Harris is a little weaker at 28%. Both could be higher, but these are significantly better than our current 0%.

It's funny you mention small business too, Harris just recently started running on a 50k tax credit for new small businesses. Which I think is fair, so long as other taxes can be implemented to cover the shortfall. Really it's higher taxes that I'm most in favor of though, personally. I dislike how strong the business sector has become in American life, and taxes are a good way to attack that.

And election reform, but that's the hardest thing to do, since you require a filibuster-proof majority to get even one step anywhere. Probably the only thing harder than fixing immigration. When we have one party driven primarily by slowly vanishing demographics like religious affiliation, they've realized democracy is no longer a viable path for them. Consistently losing the popular vote each election is a pretty clear harbinger of things to come, yet they can't switch their policies because those are core and faith-based, soooo... we're in deep shit. lol

Don't let online discourse influence you too much. Our people tend to be fairly content with portions of the leadership, with most people having their favorites and disliking all the others. I never did actually highlight that people's voices don't seem to matter, our votes very much choose these people.

You wouldn't know it here with Lemmy's natural lean, but the average American is roughly centered on neoliberalism, most Lemmings find that somewhat upsetting and prefer to ignore the fact. Even with Biden being the oldest pres in our history, and with such unpopular things as Gaza on his record, he's maintained a 30-40% approval rate. That's a percentage of total Americans that approved of his Presidency. Obama, with slightly more right-leaning policies, was around 50%.

Ultimately, it's more moderate, suburban parents that pick our leaders. They're not as excited about change as the more progressive folk you'll find here, they like stability, decorum, they don't rush to judgement, they are not overly focused on foreign policy, stuff like that. They do not generally believe the country is in any sort of dire straits, they tend to underestimate global warming, they don't particularly like people like Greta Thunberg, Just Stop Oil or pro-Palestinian protestors. They do not spend that much time on social media.

On the whole, I'd recommend not listening too much to the rhetoric of politicians or political operatives. Words are cheap, its actions once in office that tell the story. Do they cut taxes for the wealthy? Do they add or remove environmental regulations on business? Do they try to enact policies that will benefit people? The track records do vary tremendously, anyone who says its some uniparty is just spewing propaganda. They're very, very distinct, both interparty and especially between the parties. You wouldn't necessarily notice if you just listened to their words though, you do have to watch for actions. They do end up trying to have their cake and eat it too, and are more than willing to rhetorically dance around to try to avoid displeasing as many people as possible. They still have to vote on things though.

I've already said, I don't give a shit what an IDF officer says. I actually know better than to listen to military messaging. Yes they get weapons from us, but do they have to or are there other ways on planet Earth to get weapons asides buying from the US?

Still waiting for your Egyptian victory.

Perhaps you were talking about Yom Kippur, where if I recall Egypt and one other country (not Hezbollah) launched a surprise attack with the aid of advanced kit from the USSR, gained some ground and then were beaten back?

Quit believing dumb propaganda

Ooh, fascinating. Name me when Hezbollah and Egypt defeated them.

They won several wars in their early history, before getting an advanced air force, on the back of heavy infantry casualties. Again, you have no evidence.

What would a rocket barrage do? Kill tons of Israelis. Would that defeat the IDF somehow? We learned in WW2 that you can level cities, but the country will fight on. What can Iran do asides fire missiles? March through the two countries in the way?

I am not the one living in fantasy. I am not the one just conveniently believing dumb shit spoonfed to me for someone's political purposes.

Yes, they get a lot of weapons from us, no question. It is very advantageous for them to do so. The question is, do they have to? You seem to think yes, but have no evidence to support that. Nor does it make any sense, except with regards to the most advanced weapons.

Plenty of other countries manage to get weapons without getting them from the US.

Do the bulldozers need to be armored to do work enabling the genocide of Gazans? No, right? You cannot seem to distinguish optional things from requirements. Necessities from conveniences. Why is this?

That article quotes an IDF officer, whom you just believe all of a sudden, just because he says something convenient to you. This is very foolish, he is an officer participating in a war, and will say what he needs to or is ordered to say.

Bulldozers can be purchased in many places, they are not difficult to build.

edit: Oh, and I almost forgot, but Israel imports more from China than it does the US, as of the latest data I can find.

https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/isr/show/all/2022

I imagine they're popping out of the woodwork to help their boy during a weak point in his campaign.

It's a good pressure mechanism, but again, it wouldn't save Gazans unless used strategically. Machine guns and bulldozers could eliminate them all, fancy bombs are not needed. It's a tightrope walk.

They don't actually need interceptors either, incidentally. Netanyahu gives no shits about his people, if a few thousand die in rocket strikes, I doubt he cares if he gets Gaza in the end.

Oh, and we don't actually supply all their stuff btw, just a lot of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_industry_of_Israel

Re-opening embassies is certainly a good step, though I will admittedly be impressed if it keeps for the long term. It's happened before, and they're still major regional powers with one being a theocratic Shiite state with regional aspirations and the other a secular Sunni state.

I don't think Americans are quite as unified in our opinions as you might think, global disengagement is a fairly popular position in multiple different circles of the populace. From the isolationists under Trump to people like me that would prefer selective disengagement from particularly difficult regions, ceding them to other powers so it can be their headache instead of ours for a change. Most of the rest have either a progressive view based on peaceful foreign aid, which don't forget that we do a lot of, and realists that see human lives as numbers on a sheet and the globe as a chessboard, and tend to favor a strong military presence. That last category is probably still the largest majority.

We may not agree with it, but it's a view.

Note, I never said it's difficult to admit a genocide is occuring. AOC, Omar and Bernie have all done that many times. Stopping it is what is difficult. The question is how to fix it, which recall, is complicated and difficult. If we pull out, the Gazans probably all die, let's not fall for magical wishful thinking. Very little holds Netanyahu back from finishing them off, they're barely hanging on. Everyone who says cutting weapon shipments now will accomplish it is just lying through their teeth, there's no evidence or logic that it would work that way. You just don't need fancy bombs for Gaza, machine guns and bulldozers would be sufficient.

Well, everything should always be taken with a grain of salt. I'm well familiar with people that single the US out as an exceptional evil, that's extremely common, though I think it's a very selective lens. Countries are countries, and realpolitik remains the general guiding philosophy of major powers on the global stage. Any given country is subject to the current philosophies of its current leaders, nothing more. Good can become evil and evil can become good at the flip of a coup or election, that's just life. Singling any out for special hatred really accomplishes nothing productive.