this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
641 points (99.2% liked)
196
17133 readers
2636 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, but only because of the gorilla. No other significant difference in policy.
Which policy though?
He did support invading Iraq, he certainly would have invaded Afghanistan. He would have been coup'd by his own party if he actually threatened the fossil fuel industry.
Gorilla policy
“no other significant policy” ≈ would do all the same things, except Gorilla.
shhh, be quieter when you talk to the gorilla. they're sensitive creatures
He opposed the war in Iraq
Gore supported the first war in Iraq, and bombing Yugoslavia. Why do you think he would have been any different RE gorillas or imperialism?