Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Well, there is also the problem that the Cold War was one of the dumbest foreign policoy paradigms humanity had ever seen, and then there was that bit later where we were actively terrible at it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the cold war was way better than the balance of powers prior to world war I.
The Cold War began as an understandable reaction to the Soviet Union's decision to keep Eastern Europe hostage against another European invasion. NATO needed to happen. We did good by the countries we occupied in the aftermath of World War II, and we thought that was a model that could be systematized and exported to every conflict.
The Cold War morphed into a deeply hypocritical war of attrition against people who were unhappy about being colonial subjects or having to abide by treaties negotiated at the point of a European gun in another era. The common thread in American foreign policy in that era is a series of stupid/evil/ignorant decisions rooted in an ideology that saw the world as a black and white confrontation.
Like, there's an alternative history where JFK's policy in the Suez Crisis became the template for American relations in the post-WWII era, and we are now beloved around the globe for peacefully and fairly overseeing the dismantling of colonialism. Cold War politics ensured that never happened.
man as much as America fucks up a lot Israel is a super destabilizing problem in the middle east and I don't think anyone has any good idea how to solve the conflict between the Israelis and Arabs
Israel gets more credit than it's due for destabilizing the region. A middle east without Israel would probably be roughly as violent as one without it, except there just wouldn't be as many Jewish people.
Would the iran/iraq war not have happened? Would it cure the divide between Sunni and Shia? Would ISIS give up the goal of establishing a Islamic State and destroying modernism that is literally in their name of their organization? Would other regional powers give up their unrealized ambitions? Would it have delayed or accelerated the Arab spring? Would western interests in the region cease?
I don't really think so.
There's a significant difference between Israel versus The United States, Britain, and Russia-- Israel stopped invading middle eastern nations in the twenty first century.
It's also important to remember that, even if the UN had just tabled the whole "Jewish state" idea completely, there would still have been an ongoing insurgent campaign driven by sectarian separatists. It would just be the Zionists rather than the Arabs waging an intifada against a Palestinian state.
However, it's not true that Israel stopped invading other middle eastern powers in the 21st century. They invaded Lebanon in 2006.
Dongs Galore on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Well, there is also the problem that the Cold War was one of the dumbest foreign policoy paradigms humanity had ever seen, and then there was that bit later where we were actively terrible at it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the cold war was way better than the balance of powers prior to world war I.
Austria-Hungary couldn't just up and wipe out Russia with the push of a button.
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
It's a wealthy college town (and Boston is not a college town, though the specific neighborhoods that are anchored by one of the many colleges are themselves that sort of environment.)
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
Irvine is mostly rich white people, with very little poverty. It's kind of designed to be that way, actually.
Well, there is also the problem that the Cold War was one of the dumbest foreign policoy paradigms humanity had ever seen, and then there was that bit later where we were actively terrible at it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the cold war was way better than the balance of powers prior to world war I.
A bipolar world system certainly does have some advantages over multipolarity
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
Irvine is mostly rich white people, with very little poverty. It's kind of designed to be that way, actually.
So like all their convenience store workers and wait staff and shit like that are people that come from out of town and shit? Not unheard of especially if it's a small town with nothing but the college and nice houses in it.
We have a place kinda like that on the north shore called Manchester by the sea. It's like all CEOs and their school teacher wives. Place is bourgeois as fuck. It's a great place to drive around and dream about having a palacial home right on the water while people give you dirty looks for bringing your obviously prole ass to their little community.
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
Irvine is mostly rich white people, with very little poverty. It's kind of designed to be that way, actually.
So like all their convenience store workers and wait staff and shit like that are people that come from out of town and shit? Not unheard of especially if it's a small town with nothing but the college and nice houses in it.
I mean, part of it is that LA/Orange County is basically one long uninterrupted city, so it's not crazy that people are coming from nearby Tustin and Costa Mesa for work. But Irvine is essentially a planned community that for a long time was very picky about what could be built and who things were built for (and in some regards still is). On that level, it's a college town, but when we wanted to go out for some nightlife as students, we had to go to a different city because city officials had effectively killed any nighttime atmosphere in Irvine proper (it probably says a lot that the fraternities and sororities at UCI don't have houses on campus for the most part, but they all have something in nearby Newport Beach). We also had rumors while I was there for school that the police actively removed homeless individuals and dropped them off in Costa Mesa.
Hope this gives you an idea of what Irvine was like.
Well, there is also the problem that the Cold War was one of the dumbest foreign policoy paradigms humanity had ever seen, and then there was that bit later where we were actively terrible at it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the cold war was way better than the balance of powers prior to world war I.
The Cold War began as an understandable reaction to the Soviet Union's decision to keep Eastern Europe hostage against another European invasion. NATO needed to happen. We did good by the countries we occupied in the aftermath of World War II, and we thought that was a model that could be systematized and exported to every conflict.
The Cold War morphed into a deeply hypocritical war of attrition against people who were unhappy about being colonial subjects or having to abide by treaties negotiated at the point of a European gun in another era. The common thread in American foreign policy in that era is a series of stupid/evil/ignorant decisions rooted in an ideology that saw the world as a black and white confrontation.
Like, there's an alternative history where JFK's policy in the Suez Crisis became the template for American relations in the post-WWII era, and we are now beloved around the globe for peacefully and fairly overseeing the dismantling of colonialism. Cold War politics ensured that never happened.
The Suez Crisis was Eisenhower, not JFK, and I'm not sure how much his Suez "template" really differs from subsequent US policy during decolonization. US fpol was always hostile to the European empires and tried to hasten their managed retreat where feasible.
Nasserite Egypt was easy enough for Ike to back because Nasser wasn't a communist. Elsewhere the choice was less simple.
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
Irvine is mostly rich white people, with very little poverty. It's kind of designed to be that way, actually.
So like all their convenience store workers and wait staff and shit like that are people that come from out of town and shit? Not unheard of especially if it's a small town with nothing but the college and nice houses in it.
I mean, part of it is that LA/Orange County is basically one long uninterrupted city, so it's not crazy that people are coming from nearby Tustin and Costa Mesa for work. But Irvine is essentially a planned community that for a long time was very picky about what could be built and who things were built for (and in some regards still is). On that level, it's a college town, but when we wanted to go out for some nightlife as students, we had to go to a different city because city officials had effectively killed any nighttime atmosphere in Irvine proper (it probably says a lot that the fraternities and sororities at UCI don't have houses on campus for the most part, but they all have something in nearby Newport Beach). We also had rumors while I was there for school that the police actively removed homeless individuals and dropped them off in Costa Mesa.
Hope this gives you an idea of what Irvine was like.
Well, there is also the problem that the Cold War was one of the dumbest foreign policoy paradigms humanity had ever seen, and then there was that bit later where we were actively terrible at it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the cold war was way better than the balance of powers prior to world war I.
Austria-Hungary couldn't just up and wipe out Russia with the push of a button.
Basically I don't think there is a solution in which an Israeli and a Palestinian state can coexist without either Palestine compromising its sovereignty or Israel compromising its security.
US aid to Israel makes Israel somewhat more comfortable with strategic concessions (giving up the Sinai, for example), which in turn makes possible US-brokered peace treaties between Israel and various Arab powers. These further reduce the security threat to Israel, which gives Tel Aviv a wider margin of strategic compromise and as such represent the most significant material step towards a mutually agreeable Palestinian settlement (i.e., in which Israel judges that its overall strategic position is good enough that Palestinian sovereignty does not fatally compromise Israeli security) Despite the Second Intifada and the Lebanon War, it's important not to forget how much less stable the situation was before the Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties.
If you can somehow create a regional dynamic where Israel can't credibly claim an existential threat from its neighbors, a 2-state solution might become viable. Unfortunately we have limited carrots to offer the Arabs and limited sticks to beat the Israelis in order to make this happen (cutting off aid would only reinforce their strategic rationale for holding the West Bank as a buffer), and progress is more easily reversed than made.
The disproportionate influence of Israeli lobbying on the American public and legislature certainly doesn't help our freedom of action on the issue though.
My dream would be a one state solution but I know that'll never ever happen. And even if it did it would be unsatisfactory to a majority of Israelis and Palestinians.
Anyway if anyone wants to know more about the Israel-Palestine situation there are literally libraries worth of books about it. Maybe start with one of several light history books that briefly cover the region's history, from the Zionist movement and the Ottoman Empire, to the contemporary conflicts of the 20th century.
Also would be good to get some political history books for both Israel and Palestine. (Israeli politics, in particular, can be just as byzantine as American politics if you don't have someone well versed in them to explain them to you.)
If you want deep narrow cuts there are lots of books about specific events (wars, terrorist attacks, political upheavals), biographies and autobiographies, and books filled with detailed testimonials, diaries, and interviews about events going as far back as the late 1800s.
It's a fascinating, if sometimes intensely frustrating and frequently heartbreaking, subject.
A House Judiciary Committee hearing grew heated on Wednesday during an exchange between California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Gail Heriot, an anti-trans activist and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The topic was regulatory overreach, and Heriot submitted an outrageously transphobic testimony attacking the Department of Education’s recent trans-inclusive guidance. Lofgren read a portion of Heriot’s testimony aloud:
We are teaching people a terrible lesson. If I believe that I am a Russian princess, that doesn’t make me a Russian princess, even if my friends and acquaintances are willing to indulge my fantasy. Nor am I a great horned owl just because as I have been told I happen to share some personality traits with those feathered creatures.
“I’ve got to say, I found this rather offensive,” Lofgren then said of the passage:
It says to me that the witness really doesn’t know anything—and probably has never met a transgender child who is going through, in almost every case, a very difficult experience finding themselves. And I believe that the department’s guidance will help schools all over the United States in preventing the kind of violence and harassment that these transgender kids find too often. … I think it’s very regrettable that that comment was put into the record and I think it’s highly offensive.
Heriot then asked to respond. Lofgren said no, but Heriot proceeded anyway, telling Lofgren that “I think you’ll find that many people find it very offensive that the Department of Education thinks they can tell schools …”
But Lofgren shut her down.
“I think you’re a bigot, lady,” she said. “I think you’re an ignorant bigot.”
Republican Rep. Steve King ordered Lofgren to stop.
“I would just like to say,” Lofgren concluded, “that we allow witnesses to say offensive things—but I cannot allow that kind of bigotry to go into the record unchallenged.”
I feel like there's a really weird tendency to treat the US as the only actor on the international stage that has any agency.
When it comes to Palestine, that's not much of an exaggeration, considering that the US uses its status as a permanent member of the UN security council to veto any and all UN resolutions that would recognize Palestinian sovereignty.
There are times I wonder how many paid right wing shills are on the boards.
wait, we can get paid for this?
Its long been an internet myth/urban legend that the right wing pays shills to show up on internet boards to post their talking points. I remember back in the day this was like the Farkingest fark thing. "Oh who's paying you to post you love GWB?"
You couldn't pay me enough to post something nice about GWB.
He's not half the noble, visionary leader that his much smarter and handsome brother Jeb is.
Good ol Jeb, that's a guy you can take to the bank
I cannot say openly that I identify with Republicans, lest I see friendships and potential professional connections disappear with those words. When I see Hillary Clinton, I see the world becoming less and less tolerant of right-leaning views.
For context, my right wing views include:
Lower taxes for all, and with it a reduction of various benefits.
Reduction or an end to affirmative action in favor of a pure merit-based system.
Support for law and order, and an intense dislike of disruptive protests.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration.
In favor of "melting pot" culture instead of multiculturalism.
Isolationist war policy and anti-NATO, in favor of improving relations with Russia.
For further context, I have left-wing views that precluded Rubio and Cruz from getting my vote:
Pro access to birth control
Pro universal healthcare (despite the taxes this requires, it’s the only realistic way to combat rising prices)
Pro LGBT rights
I favor the absolute separation of church and state. (I'm a Christian who believes very strongly that my religion should not be pushed onto public policy.)
I'm beginning to think that many Trump supporters are just reflecting their beliefs onto their image of him
They don't actually know what he stands for, they just know that he's an "outsider" and that he is breaking up the status quo. They just assume he'll replace it with something exactly to their liking.
I'm still going to make fun of someone for supporting Donald Trump. I won't make fun of any of those specific views (I disagree with a lot of them but I don't find a lot of them inherently untenable.) besides the ban on Muslim immigration, the idea of American cultural exceptionalism, and the ridiculous idea of having universal healthcare while "lowering taxes" and "reducing benefits."
I'm beginning to think that many Trump supporters are just reflecting their beliefs onto their image of him
They don't actually know what he stands for, they just know that he's an "outsider" and that he is breaking up the status quo. They just assume he'll replace it with something exactly to their liking.
yeah that's exactly how he's been successful, saying whatever people want to hear and then contradicting it in the next breath.
I cannot say openly that I identify with Republicans, lest I see friendships and potential professional connections disappear with those words. When I see Hillary Clinton, I see the world becoming less and less tolerant of right-leaning views.
For context, my right wing views include:
Lower taxes for all, and with it a reduction of various benefits.
Reduction or an end to affirmative action in favor of a pure merit-based system.
Support for law and order, and an intense dislike of disruptive protests.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration.
In favor of "melting pot" culture instead of multiculturalism.
Isolationist war policy and anti-NATO, in favor of improving relations with Russia.
For further context, I have left-wing views that precluded Rubio and Cruz from getting my vote:
Pro access to birth control
Pro universal healthcare (despite the taxes this requires, it’s the only realistic way to combat rising prices)
Pro LGBT rights
I favor the absolute separation of church and state. (I'm a Christian who believes very strongly that my religion should not be pushed onto public policy.)
Those are actual quotes, completely untouched
I really like how he feels like he has to hide his beliefs lest... people tell him they find his beliefs unpleasant and stop wanting to associate with him. No, you know, threat of physical harm or anything substantial. Fucking persecution complexes...
Leading up to the California primary Bernie did an interview with Univision and, in my opinion, it put on display a couple of the things I consider to be a significant failing on the part of his campaign. His narrow focus on one or two key issues, and the staff that surrounds him.
Even after the particularly bad interview he did with the NYDN, he is once again put on the spot and asked about topics he should at least have some grasp on, and not only does he have no idea, he still can't stop himself from pivoting back to his stump speech.
He must have known for a while that he was going to do this interview, and he had to know that he would be asked about Latin America, and it appears that no one on his team spent any time with him to prepare at least a little.
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
Irvine is more like saying it in Waltham.
And even in Boston, 50% of Boston public high school graduates go on to a 4 year college. And as crappy as Roxbury is, a majority of its residents have a college degree and a quarter have a graduate degree. A big chunk of that is Northeastern but still
I cannot say openly that I identify with Republicans, lest I see friendships and potential professional connections disappear with those words. When I see Hillary Clinton, I see the world becoming less and less tolerant of right-leaning views.
For context, my right wing views include:
Lower taxes for all, and with it a reduction of various benefits.
Reduction or an end to affirmative action in favor of a pure merit-based system.
Support for law and order, and an intense dislike of disruptive protests.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration.
In favor of "melting pot" culture instead of multiculturalism.
Isolationist war policy and anti-NATO, in favor of improving relations with Russia.
For further context, I have left-wing views that precluded Rubio and Cruz from getting my vote:
Pro access to birth control
Pro universal healthcare (despite the taxes this requires, it’s the only realistic way to combat rising prices)
Pro LGBT rights
I favor the absolute separation of church and state. (I'm a Christian who believes very strongly that my religion should not be pushed onto public policy.)
Those are actual quotes, completely untouched
I really like how he feels like he has to hide his beliefs lest... people tell him they find his beliefs unpleasant and stop wanting to associate with him. No, you know, threat of physical harm or anything substantial. Fucking persecution complexes...
Anyone in favor of a temporary ban on muslims and some kind of horseshit non belief in "Melting pots" should be ostracized for being an idiot.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I cannot say openly that I identify with Republicans, lest I see friendships and potential professional connections disappear with those words. When I see Hillary Clinton, I see the world becoming less and less tolerant of right-leaning views.
For context, my right wing views include:
Lower taxes for all, and with it a reduction of various benefits.
Reduction or an end to affirmative action in favor of a pure merit-based system.
Support for law and order, and an intense dislike of disruptive protests.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration.
In favor of "melting pot" culture instead of multiculturalism.
Isolationist war policy and anti-NATO, in favor of improving relations with Russia.
For further context, I have left-wing views that precluded Rubio and Cruz from getting my vote:
Pro access to birth control
Pro universal healthcare (despite the taxes this requires, it’s the only realistic way to combat rising prices)
Pro LGBT rights
I favor the absolute separation of church and state. (I'm a Christian who believes very strongly that my religion should not be pushed onto public policy.)
Those are actual quotes, completely untouched
I really like how he feels like he has to hide his beliefs lest... people tell him they find his beliefs unpleasant and stop wanting to associate with him. No, you know, threat of physical harm or anything substantial. Fucking persecution complexes...
Anyone in favor of a temporary ban on muslims and some kind of horseshit non belief in "Melting pots" should be ostracized for being an idiot.
I very much believe that everyone has the right to hold whatever personal opinions they want. But everyone else has a right to tell them they are idiots and/or monsters for those opinions.
+13
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
no, he's an oppressed minority because people meanly keep saying that his political views are dumb.
Oh sure - he can get jobs, marry whoever he wants, use bathrooms unmolested, has full access to the justice system, gets the benefit of the doubt from police, and has hundreds of years of societal advantage behind him...
but the real injustice in this country is that if people find out he's a Trump supporter, they won't like him
no, he's an oppressed minority because people meanly keep saying that his political views are dumb.
Oh sure - he can get jobs, marry whoever he wants, use bathrooms unmolested, has full access to the justice system, gets the benefit of the doubt from police, and has hundreds of years of societal advantage behind him...
but the real injustice in this country is that if people find out he's a Trump supporter, they won't like him
For several days, I’ve been corresponding with a 22-year-old Donald Trump supporter. He is white, has a bachelor’s degree, and earns $50,000 to $60,000 per year.
He lives near San Francisco.
“I recently became engaged to my Asian fiancée who is making roughly 3 times what I make, and I am completely supportive of her and proud she is doing so well,” he wrote. “We’ve both benefitted a lot from globalization. We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters,” he observed, “but we're not. In 2016, we're both going for Trump.”
I'm beginning to think that many Trump supporters are just reflecting their beliefs onto their image of him
They don't actually know what he stands for, they just know that he's an "outsider" and that he is breaking up the status quo. They just assume he'll replace it with something exactly to their liking.
Trump's whole operation is about saying what they want to hear, but having no further details or plan on how to actually achieve that since, surprise surprise, a lot of hard right desires aren't feasible.
The wall is an easy example. We've all heard how it's a waste of time and money, and Trump has no idea how to pay for it besides "Make the Mexicans cover it!" Now that sounds GREAT to his crowd, but when it comes to "So...how do we make Mexico pay for it?" Trump gets into very murky and vague language about trade deficits and shit. It's the same man who wants universal health care, because he can sound very humanitarian and everyone knows health care right now is still a wreck. But he also doesn't want socialized healthcare, but this is Trump Land, where he can vouch for a vague, single-payer style health care plan while at the same time decrying the evils of that socialist legislation the Affordable Care Act.
To sum it up, they aren't projecting any beliefs onto him: Trump has deliberate built a suit of smoke and mirrors to be the One True Conservative candidate that Republicans have been trained to lust after for years.
I remember the first time I saw those signs in the Central Valley. I expected to drive through Sacramento and there'd just be this giant tower of water with some guy's face on it and armed guards oppressing peasants.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
his fiancee makes 3 times as much as he does?
Trump would have some sexist things to say about that.
Posts
He said that schoolchildren in Irvine, CA probably don't know anyone going to college.
Are you surprised that he's unaware of foreign affairs?
The Cold War began as an understandable reaction to the Soviet Union's decision to keep Eastern Europe hostage against another European invasion. NATO needed to happen. We did good by the countries we occupied in the aftermath of World War II, and we thought that was a model that could be systematized and exported to every conflict.
The Cold War morphed into a deeply hypocritical war of attrition against people who were unhappy about being colonial subjects or having to abide by treaties negotiated at the point of a European gun in another era. The common thread in American foreign policy in that era is a series of stupid/evil/ignorant decisions rooted in an ideology that saw the world as a black and white confrontation.
Like, there's an alternative history where JFK's policy in the Suez Crisis became the template for American relations in the post-WWII era, and we are now beloved around the globe for peacefully and fairly overseeing the dismantling of colonialism. Cold War politics ensured that never happened.
It's also important to remember that, even if the UN had just tabled the whole "Jewish state" idea completely, there would still have been an ongoing insurgent campaign driven by sectarian separatists. It would just be the Zionists rather than the Arabs waging an intifada against a Palestinian state.
However, it's not true that Israel stopped invading other middle eastern powers in the 21st century. They invaded Lebanon in 2006.
Austria-Hungary couldn't just up and wipe out Russia with the push of a button.
Okay here's my question regarding this. I get that Irvine is a college town, but outside of the college kids what's the demographics like?
Because I went to school in Boston. Right on edge Boston proper and Roxbury (like the line between a Roxbury address and a Boston address was the street directlybehind our small campus. If you were talking about the school children directly next to my college, in Roxbury then yeah you can be a schoolchild from a college town that will never make it to college or who doesn't know anyone in college (other than the laborers from the local community that work the college).
Like this seems a pretty valid issue to me, but without knowing Irvine personally I can't be sure if he just brought it up in the wrong college town.
It's a wealthy college town (and Boston is not a college town, though the specific neighborhoods that are anchored by one of the many colleges are themselves that sort of environment.)
Irvine is mostly rich white people, with very little poverty. It's kind of designed to be that way, actually.
A bipolar world system certainly does have some advantages over multipolarity
I thought as much but just wasn't sure what you were going for with preparation
but yeah, I voted for Sanders but his lack of foreign policy chops is why I'm ok with Clinton going in.
So like all their convenience store workers and wait staff and shit like that are people that come from out of town and shit? Not unheard of especially if it's a small town with nothing but the college and nice houses in it.
We have a place kinda like that on the north shore called Manchester by the sea. It's like all CEOs and their school teacher wives. Place is bourgeois as fuck. It's a great place to drive around and dream about having a palacial home right on the water while people give you dirty looks for bringing your obviously prole ass to their little community.
I mean, part of it is that LA/Orange County is basically one long uninterrupted city, so it's not crazy that people are coming from nearby Tustin and Costa Mesa for work. But Irvine is essentially a planned community that for a long time was very picky about what could be built and who things were built for (and in some regards still is). On that level, it's a college town, but when we wanted to go out for some nightlife as students, we had to go to a different city because city officials had effectively killed any nighttime atmosphere in Irvine proper (it probably says a lot that the fraternities and sororities at UCI don't have houses on campus for the most part, but they all have something in nearby Newport Beach). We also had rumors while I was there for school that the police actively removed homeless individuals and dropped them off in Costa Mesa.
Hope this gives you an idea of what Irvine was like.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
The Suez Crisis was Eisenhower, not JFK, and I'm not sure how much his Suez "template" really differs from subsequent US policy during decolonization. US fpol was always hostile to the European empires and tried to hasten their managed retreat where feasible.
Nasserite Egypt was easy enough for Ike to back because Nasser wasn't a communist. Elsewhere the choice was less simple.
I thinks I gets it now.
which is probably why Russia declared war on them
My dream would be a one state solution but I know that'll never ever happen. And even if it did it would be unsatisfactory to a majority of Israelis and Palestinians.
Also would be good to get some political history books for both Israel and Palestine. (Israeli politics, in particular, can be just as byzantine as American politics if you don't have someone well versed in them to explain them to you.)
If you want deep narrow cuts there are lots of books about specific events (wars, terrorist attacks, political upheavals), biographies and autobiographies, and books filled with detailed testimonials, diaries, and interviews about events going as far back as the late 1800s.
It's a fascinating, if sometimes intensely frustrating and frequently heartbreaking, subject.
they're complaining of federal overreach, but are totally fine with the state legislatures enforcing THEIR beliefs on local government.
I fucking hate this shit so much
When it comes to Palestine, that's not much of an exaggeration, considering that the US uses its status as a permanent member of the UN security council to veto any and all UN resolutions that would recognize Palestinian sovereignty.
States rights has always been about being able to oppress your constituency in a manner the federal government would not approve of.
Please Agree.
Those are actual quotes, completely untouched
Or guns.
They don't actually know what he stands for, they just know that he's an "outsider" and that he is breaking up the status quo. They just assume he'll replace it with something exactly to their liking.
yeah that's exactly how he's been successful, saying whatever people want to hear and then contradicting it in the next breath.
I really like how he feels like he has to hide his beliefs lest... people tell him they find his beliefs unpleasant and stop wanting to associate with him. No, you know, threat of physical harm or anything substantial. Fucking persecution complexes...
All you have to do is drain all the rivers!
ALL HAIL HIS GENIUS
I saw like eight people on my twitter timeline react to that one quote.
It was like this
Irvine is more like saying it in Waltham.
And even in Boston, 50% of Boston public high school graduates go on to a 4 year college. And as crappy as Roxbury is, a majority of its residents have a college degree and a quarter have a graduate degree. A big chunk of that is Northeastern but still
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Anyone in favor of a temporary ban on muslims and some kind of horseshit non belief in "Melting pots" should be ostracized for being an idiot.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I very much believe that everyone has the right to hold whatever personal opinions they want. But everyone else has a right to tell them they are idiots and/or monsters for those opinions.
Oh sure - he can get jobs, marry whoever he wants, use bathrooms unmolested, has full access to the justice system, gets the benefit of the doubt from police, and has hundreds of years of societal advantage behind him...
but the real injustice in this country is that if people find out he's a Trump supporter, they won't like him
so oppressed!
The wall is an easy example. We've all heard how it's a waste of time and money, and Trump has no idea how to pay for it besides "Make the Mexicans cover it!" Now that sounds GREAT to his crowd, but when it comes to "So...how do we make Mexico pay for it?" Trump gets into very murky and vague language about trade deficits and shit. It's the same man who wants universal health care, because he can sound very humanitarian and everyone knows health care right now is still a wreck. But he also doesn't want socialized healthcare, but this is Trump Land, where he can vouch for a vague, single-payer style health care plan while at the same time decrying the evils of that socialist legislation the Affordable Care Act.
To sum it up, they aren't projecting any beliefs onto him: Trump has deliberate built a suit of smoke and mirrors to be the One True Conservative candidate that Republicans have been trained to lust after for years.
I remember the first time I saw those signs in the Central Valley. I expected to drive through Sacramento and there'd just be this giant tower of water with some guy's face on it and armed guards oppressing peasants.
Trump would have some sexist things to say about that.
That's a $200-250,000 household...
Middle-class!