Remember when Biden was “only one term” and “the most progressive president in history?” His entire career was on the record for us to see what a servile and slimeball of an insider he was. At least with Trump you know you’re getting a bad deal, he wears his sleaze on his sleeve.

Liberals love the “Trump supporters are starting to come around and regret their ways” story. Every day for the next 1300+ days they will be posting this. In truth, the people who voted for Trump with enthusiasm (not just contrarianism, fatigue or ignorance) will find any way to spin his policies as a positive or a necessary evil. And frankly, anyone who voted enthusiastically for the Democratic party is capable of the same and demonstrated they too have no moral red lines.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I’m not saying these terrible things are just being German. I’m saying that the current government and political class doing these terrible things view these things as “just being German” and define extremism as “being Islamic”. I know that the majority of Germans are liberals, humanists, educated and anti-racist.

Your foreign minister applauds Israel for mass killing children, your rising AfD party wants to deport Muslims and you now demand that anyone becoming a Germany citizen give the racist state of Israel a stamp of approval. Everyone watched half your politicians blame the Christmas ramming attack on Islam even though the perpetrator hated Muslims. You send a non-Jewish antisemitism commisars to bully Jews who criticize Israel. You are burying liberalism’s corpse. So enlighten me.

It’s not strictly a fact check. Due to A) Haiti’s governance collapse and B) no reliable estimate of conditions of life across all North Korea

Ask Ron DeSantis, he might now.

Not included is that they fucking blew up the buildings.

In Germany, they view extremist politics as anything to do with Islam, so if you promote the expulsion of Muslims or their reeducation or forcing them to sign pledges to Israel to become citizens, you’re just being German.

Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning, or “waterboarding”, 183 times while held in secret CIA prisons following his arrest in 2003. Other so-called “advanced interrogation techniques” included sleep deprivation and forced nudity.

Sounds totally legit and he should definitely be executed on that information despite the guilty plea he signed after 20 years of being tortured.

LOL nice one

Am I wrong in assuming your name is Israeli?

I don’t get why it is relevant. Energy is cheap and abundant today almkst everywhere that isn’t sanctioned or a warzone.

Sorry but the German people and not Schroder were the ones who chose anti-nuclear. And the reliance on Russian gas may have backfired, but at the time it enabled perhaps the most efficient economy Europe had ever known.

I didn’t say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn’t a crazy position

Actually it was crazy to everyone who didn’t exist in the bubble of US and UK elites that The Economists coexists in. Way to prove my point again.

but it’s pretty darned weak

It’s “darned weak” for me to point out that The Economist is biased in the exact way you keep revealing yourself to be lol? Who could’ve questioned the Iraq War, I mean it only inspired the biggest single day global protest in human history!

Admit you were caught with your pants down, that you insisted on outsourcing indepedent or critical engagement with press to a subjective barometer website and that your particular range of political and historical knowledge is quite limited and should be expanded.

We can move on to my opinions on the Economist’s Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government’s decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it’s inexcusable and proves my point.

You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.

Big difference between a paper (ime FT, Guardian, Independent) and a rag. Those two aren’t really on my radar.

Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?

deleted by creator

I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.

Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.