Lets, for a moment, presume Iran has Nuclear weapons - and uses them. Lets just remind that Israel is known to have at LEAST 90 nuclear warheads, and several of those missiles are likely prepped ready pointed at Iran.

To put it simply: That move DOES NOT end well. If anything, it ends strictly worse then simply accepting that Israel crippled Iran’s infrastructure. And any hope for normalization and opening trade up on the global market outside of China, Russia, and North Korea becomes basically zero until the regime is overthrown. Even worse - if Israel opts for nuclear strikes to follow up their conventional ones after being attacked with nuclear weapons,there is a good chance it’s not just several years of repair work, but decades of set back that could easily lead to mass scale discontentment and open revolt against the regime by several factions simultaneously.

The reality is: Israel is not a force capable of sustained occupation of an entity like Iran. But they are a force capable of a decapitating strike. And the entire reason is, Israel has VERY LIMITED force projection capabilities - and, because of a lack of land boarder with Iran, would need cooperation with other states that may not be thrilled with opening themselves up to direct conflict in the short to mid term. The only real reason Israel has room to do a strike is 1. It’s retaliatory, and 2. entities like Saudi Arabia are liable to be just fine with their regional rivals basically offing each other, as Saudi Arabia is in a MUCH better position to take advantage in the event of Iran’s regime collapsing.

Which brings us to: Just because you have nuclear weapons, does not mean you use them. The reality is, nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort - unless you are France, and then it’s a nuclear warning shot… Because France is just different.

Why would people that benefit from forced labour want to end it? Cheap labour benefits the wealthy - more money to make money with. And to those who think criminals should face actual punishment and pay back society - well: Why would they have a problem with forced labour. And, we have the political spectrum nicely tied up there - at least a majority of it.

If you want to get reform in: You need to address two groups - the “tough on crime” crowd, and the “abuse of prisoners is unacceptable” crowd - and that CAN be done. We need some core changes:

1. Restrict Solitary Confinement to violent outburst - and restrict it’s use. After all, our goal is to encourage people to participate not drive people into nonfunctional insanity.
2. Create base rate pay that is tied to minimum wage (like 2/3’s of it) with 1/3 going towards a savings fund, and 1/3 for the individual to use on whatever is allowed for them to buy. In effect: There should be a reason to work.
3. Increase base rate of repeat offences BUT tie in a labour + rehabilitation program participation as a way to reduce that sentence across the board.

Those three things - increase penalty for uncooperative individuals; It creates an environment of owning responsibility for actions; and it means that prisoners aren’t being paid a fraction of the minimum pay rate of the 1960’s. We can go even further with this:

1. The 2/3 of minimum wage is for low security prisoners.
2. Medium security prisoners have a lower rate of pay - say 1/2 of minimum wage, with the difference going directly towards restitution costs.
3. Violent criminals and high security prisoners gain no rate of pay for 10 years or until restitution is fully paid - whichever comes sooner, and their pay rate is 1/3 of minimum wage with the difference going to restitution costs.

In this way: There is a STRONG incentive to take actions, and efforts that will get you transferred to a lower security prison. We can also do things with half-way houses - and support training programs, and perhaps even voluntary association with a case worker post conviction for individuals that FEEL like they need extra support avoiding re-offending. This is not about reducing, or removing the existing system - but expanding it.

In effect: This entire set of changes is not about reducing the punishment on crime, nor straight up reducing the incarcerated population. Instead: It’s all about PERSONAL responsibility. And maybe, you could actually get THAT kind of reform through.

Ok: PeerTube is interesting. But: in terms of replacement? No. non-viable.

The problem you have is multifold - and one of them is constant content availability, and total bandwidth. The value of Youtube is on demand streaming - you click a video, it plays, basically anywhere in the world. The other value is… copyright: Because of the way youtube is set up, you don’t have the same kind of copyright problems as you would without the back end negotiating and systems youtube as put in place. You can think copyright as it stands is oppresive and sucks -and I agree; but with the law the way it is - youtube is the best work around that is feasibly possible.

Mirroring all of youtube needs piles of terrabytes of new storage DAILY. and it’s in the hundreds of thousands as a low end estimate. You need the computational power to do the transcoding. You need the distribution of servers to load balance and avoid over saturating and d-dossing any given server cluster.

The reality is the Torrent protocol has been around forever - and there is a reason it never really took off, despite live watching while streaming was feasible: It has too many pitfalls.

And then, there is the content creator side: If you want to make money - youutube is kind of the place to put your content up with youtube premium sharing, ad revenue sharing and so on once you can monetize your channel. And while there are all kinds of BS in regards to what can and can’t be monetized - there really isn’t a replacement, not for the average person just getting started - and not if you are trying to build your following.

I don’t think you understand the capabilities difference - Israel has the nuclear option if they are threatened existentially. But lets take that off the table a moment.

Iran’s capabilities are their missiles, manufacturing capabilities. Their Refineries, and strategic energy reserves are in known locations and are the lynch pin of Iran’s economy. And finally, the Nuclear R&D facilities are in known places. All of those are the targets - and Israel absolutely has the capacity to take it out- just not the strong justification.

If Iran continues striking Israel, Israel is going to feel the pressure to decapitate Iran as a threat to them.

The fall out of this is more interesting:

1. China loses access to Iranian Oil for the short to mid term - it will take time to restore capabilities.

2. Russia loses access to Iranian missiles - without production capabilities, and depleted stocks, Iran will not be able to sell missiles to Russia let alone drones.

3. Iran’s economy will be in shambles - that could very well open the door to coup or revolt.

4. Iran would unload as many missiles as it possibly could - which could be devastating. But that would come down to just how many interceptor missiles Israel would have available, along with other air defence options.

If you want a “Why would trump support this” - there you have it. It reaffirms US obligation to support it’s allies, It puts economic pressure on china, and denies Russia access to weapons - which should help push them to the negotiating table.

In reality, I would more expect Iran to back off. Then again - With Israel obliterating Iran proxies, Iran may feel the pressure to complete a nuclear deterrent and Israel may end up wanting to decapitate Iran as a threat BEFORE they gain that capability… what a bloody mess.

What KIND of liberal? There are several “liberal” variants and the two main defined variants are:

• Classic Liberalism - functionally the idea’s of the french revolution.

• Modern Liberalism - tack social justice into the mix, requiring government intervention to enforce it.

reality is, since about 1965-1970 left wing parties have been defined by the social justice bent. They have more or less been governed by an idea that they alone have the moral authority to define correct from wrong, that it is they that must define what is right wing - and over the years, a tremendous number of things, have been defined as right wing; we have seen a shift from Representatives defining laws and regulations - to regulatory agencies having the power to define the details devolved to them. We have seen the growth and bloat of bureaucracy, funded through increased taxes -and inflationary spending practices.

So the reason “liberal” is defined differently - is functionally that the definition of “liberal” has been redefined. And this reuse of terms - well: That has a storied history in a particular soviet nation. Political correctness has a very soviet history to it.

If you want to debate, and discredit a candidate based on their political stance/views and policies - ok: Do so. But maybe stop trying to define it as “nazi” - the term is ever more losing it’s weight in discussions, and that fact makes it very difficult to legitimately call out problematic entities. Because lets be clear: Trump is NOT A National Socialist - and that is a defining feature of the Nazi party.

Do you have one reason to not vote for Harris, or Many reasons not to vote? Lets say in this Trolley like problem scenario that Flipping the lever to run over one is voting for Harris, flipping it to roll over the list is voting for trump - and rejecting making the choice is walking away.

Thing is - this gets complicated: Just because someone publicly says they aren’t voting because of Gaza does not mean 1. they didn’t vote, and 2. doesn’t mean they don’t see all the other problems - because left organizations/groups have a tendency of vilifying anyone that opposes their view points excessively - because they have the moral high ground supposedly - the end result is: People won’t speak up about the real reasons, they will stick to the socially acceptable one and move on. It’s far easier, simpler.

So: What is on the long list of problems?

1. Biden ending the “Stay in Mexico” Agreement.

2. Tax payer dollars being sent to illegal immigrants in various ways.

3. The way deaths were assigned to Covid - even when the person had stage 4 cancer, and covid was maybe a contributing factor.

4. Catch and Release policies found in a number of Democrat stronghold cities - to a point that stores are giving up trying to operate in the regions. And I’m not talking small locations - I’m talking big businesses. Small ones end up going belly up because they can’t eat the costs, insurance premiums for protecting your inventory in the areas have gone up and that means small businesses can’t afford to insure, and that raises their risks.

Should I continue?

Trumps anti-sanctuary city, record on putting in effective policy to deal with the southern boarder problem, and take on the fact that US cities should be sanctuaries for US citizens - well: That resonates with people. It resonates in California (where voter support from previous years to today went up ~8%), it resonates in New york (comparing previous years to today is ~+7% over previous years), even in Texas (~3% uptick). Trump WON the popular vote with fairly high voter turn out.

The Truth is

No person struggling in their own life, cares all that much about people in another country. When the government can find money to fund a foreign war - people are going to start wondering why they can’t find money to fix roads, law enforcement, housing, and other issues back home: It would be far cheaper over all.

In a world where crime has gone up since 2020, while being down from 2013: People are going to see it. And if you live in Seattle, or New York it’s difficult to ignore massive stores closing locations and a growing number of vacant store fronts. And should that problem continue - it’s going to cause further knock on effects. After all: Blank store fronts are not attractive, and if you make them look full - those looking for space are going to presume it’s filled. And these buildings are often times leveraged - and if they reduce lease rates to draw in interest, they may very well have debts called in: And that will hurt the current owners. Worse yet - without revenue coming in, it’s very likely that SOME of the maintenance needed is being avoided.

So while some the Gaza issue is JUST the Gaza issue - my bet, is that to a lot of people, it’s just the socially acceptable excuse. But honestly - it has some legitimacy as well. After all: Supporting the war effort with a lot now, or a smaller amount over a bit of time nets the same result.