Only slightly on topic, but I personally lost a job in 2018 in no small part due to pumping breastmilk at work. The company and my manager was all "we support all your choices!" like repetitive parrots, but the only pumping rooms available were on the other side of the complex... it took 30 minutes just to make a round trip, never mind the pumping itself, which had to happen twice a day... and the productivity metrics just kept increasing... and increasing... and I couldn't keep up, and I couldn't work any overtime, because--well--baby... and the manager told me they had always been this way, and since I hadn't been keeping careful records of them prior to this I couldn't prove otherwise...
I might have been able to keep the job if I'd quit breastfeeding my child and spent less time with him (and thrown all parental responsibilities on my husband) but I was too exhausted to fight, either against the company or against my maternal instincts. I decided to quit before I was fired. Luckily I found another job within a week, and luckily the kid weaned himself simultaneously, but it was a dark time.
Yeah, this could really be a strength for Warren in the campaign.
+48
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
.The GOP does not need any of these attacks to be factually based.
Then they can literally make the exact same claims about Biden, or Harris, or Sanders, or Beto.
Therefore it should be irrelevant in the Primary.
The problem isn't the GOP and whatever they will put out into their right-wing hate-o-sphere (thanks @override367 ). The problem is the mainstream media and their reliance on a horse-race narrative, or really just both-siding and focusing on "scandals". Like with the current Biden stuff. This is not an election year so the focus is mainly on Trump, but they still have to report on whatever new uninteresting detail they find out about Hunter Biden and stuff. It doesn't work with blatantly made up stuff, the Swift Boat stuff was mostly ignored by the media, but when there is even a little something they go off.
This would all be less of an issue if it weren't for Trump's seeming immunity to scandals and his knack for making the focus his attacks. Trump will not let the election be about something like policy if he can help it.
Only slightly on topic, but I personally lost a job in 2018 in no small part due to pumping breastmilk at work. The company and my manager was all "we support all your choices!" like repetitive parrots, but the only pumping rooms available were on the other side of the complex... it took 30 minutes just to make a round trip, never mind the pumping itself, which had to happen twice a day... and the productivity metrics just kept increasing... and increasing... and I couldn't keep up, and I couldn't work any overtime, because--well--baby... and the manager told me they had always been this way, and since I hadn't been keeping careful records of them prior to this I couldn't prove otherwise...
I might have been able to keep the job if I'd quit breastfeeding my child and spent less time with him (and thrown all parental responsibilities on my husband) but I was too exhausted to fight, either against the company or against my maternal instincts. I decided to quit before I was fired. Luckily I found another job within a week, and luckily the kid weaned himself simultaneously, but it was a dark time.
Yeah, this could really be a strength for Warren in the campaign.
Wow. Just straight owning the evil there.
To keep this on topic, yes - this is an issue that could resonate with approximately half of the population. Probably a bad choice to attack her own if she's just going to flip it around this way.
The defence industry doesn't need wars to be huge and influential.
....what?
I realize the name might throw of a confused puppy for a second, but what exactly do you think all those weapons and bombs and battleships and shit are for? You think the US government would be investing insane amounts of money into inventing increasingly sophisticated ways of killing very far away people if it was not waging war all the time? Maintain the worlds largest army without ever deploying any of it?
I'm beginning to think the single biggest action any new Democratic president could take on foreign policy is just renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War.
Dude, the US builds more shit then it needs constantly. The defence industry is more about make work and make money then it is make war. That's why the F-35 is built in like every contiguous state in the union. That's why you will see Congress pushing for more funding even when the Pentagon is asking for less. The key word in defence industry is not defence, it's industry. If you don't understand it as a multi-billion dollar industry, you don't understand how it works.
You think the US government would be investing insane amounts of money into inventing increasingly sophisticated ways of killing very far away people if it was not waging war all the time? Maintain the worlds largest army without ever deploying any of it?
Well...yes? Intimidating everyone else into peace hasn't worked all the time, but broadly speaking that's been the plan for the last seventy or so years. Whether you call it American Imperialism or Pax Americana, that is the goal.
It's seen results, too. The US Navy, for instance, is absurdly more powerful than every other navy in the world, but the only ship in commission to sink another in combat is a relic from the Age of Sail. The modern ones haven't needed to.
I don't think this system is fair, or ideal, or maybe even sustainable long-term. The US system of government created this military and then handed it to Donald Trump, and I do not care to see what he might do as he feels increasingly cornered. However, I do not want to gamble on a peaceful hegemonic transition in a world with nuclear weapons, so for now keeping the status quo seems like the least bad option. Consequently, I tend to give the really isolationist candidates a bit more side-eye.
The defence industry doesn't need wars to be huge and influential.
....what?
I realize the name might throw of a confused puppy for a second, but what exactly do you think all those weapons and bombs and battleships and shit are for? You think the US government would be investing insane amounts of money into inventing increasingly sophisticated ways of killing very far away people if it was not waging war all the time? Maintain the worlds largest army without ever deploying any of it?
I'm beginning to think the single biggest action any new Democratic president could take on foreign policy is just renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War.
Dude, the US builds more shit then it needs constantly. The defence industry is more about make work and make money then it is make war. That's why the F-35 is built in like every contiguous state in the union. That's why you will see Congress pushing for more funding even when the Pentagon is asking for less. The key word in defence industry is not defence, it's industry. If you don't understand it as a multi-billion dollar industry, you don't understand how it works.
A good example of the grift machine that is the Pentagon; Boehner's district has a defense contractor that has had a marine amphibious tank in development for something on the order of a decade. They have yet to produce a prototype (that I'm aware of), and marine corps generals have stated that they are not interested in development of an amphibious tank. Yet this company still gets funding.
I can't find the original article that talked about this; his district is home to an important factory that produces the Abrams Tank though
The pentagon needs a long and thorough audit and swift kick to the ass for anyone still receiving/approving contracts like this.
The defence industry doesn't need wars to be huge and influential.
....what?
I realize the name might throw of a confused puppy for a second, but what exactly do you think all those weapons and bombs and battleships and shit are for? You think the US government would be investing insane amounts of money into inventing increasingly sophisticated ways of killing very far away people if it was not waging war all the time? Maintain the worlds largest army without ever deploying any of it?
I'm beginning to think the single biggest action any new Democratic president could take on foreign policy is just renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War.
Dude, the US builds more shit then it needs constantly. The defence industry is more about make work and make money then it is make war. That's why the F-35 is built in like every contiguous state in the union. That's why you will see Congress pushing for more funding even when the Pentagon is asking for less. The key word in defence industry is not defence, it's industry. If you don't understand it as a multi-billion dollar industry, you don't understand how it works.
A good example of the grift machine that is the Pentagon; Boehner's district has a defense contractor that has had a marine amphibious tank in development for something on the order of a decade. They have yet to produce a prototype (that I'm aware of), and marine corps generals have stated that they are not interested in development of an amphibious tank. Yet this company still gets funding.
I can't find the original article that talked about this; his district is home to an important factory that produces the Abrams Tank though
The pentagon needs a long and thorough audit and swift kick to the ass for anyone still receiving/approving contracts like this.
This is all reaching crisis mode now, as the combination of China advancing and selling missile technology that can make our carrier fleets obsolete and everybody making cheaper and cheaper drones means that all the boondoggles are what we built while the rest of the world focused on creating disruptive technological leaps.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The defence industry doesn't need wars to be huge and influential.
....what?
I realize the name might throw of a confused puppy for a second, but what exactly do you think all those weapons and bombs and battleships and shit are for? You think the US government would be investing insane amounts of money into inventing increasingly sophisticated ways of killing very far away people if it was not waging war all the time? Maintain the worlds largest army without ever deploying any of it?
I'm beginning to think the single biggest action any new Democratic president could take on foreign policy is just renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War.
Dude, the US builds more shit then it needs constantly. The defence industry is more about make work and make money then it is make war. That's why the F-35 is built in like every contiguous state in the union. That's why you will see Congress pushing for more funding even when the Pentagon is asking for less. The key word in defence industry is not defence, it's industry. If you don't understand it as a multi-billion dollar industry, you don't understand how it works.
More shit than you need is not the same as shit you don't need at all. You're acting like the US government could just as well be spending all that money in any other industry. They just coincidentally picked the defence industry?
like, you can't be backing up your argument with empirical evidence because the US has been at war for almost all the time since WW2. You're offering a counterfactual, and your argument is based on the F-35 being built in multiple places?
So this isn't actually a scandal at all, and like with many of the other attacks, Warren is now using it positively for her campaign.
This morning, her Facebook account posted her story of being informed her job was no longer available to her for the next year as a result of her pregnancy. She then invited other women to share their own stories about being fired for being pregnant and the like while calling for greater protections in the workplace.
Within 3 hours it had nearly 1000 comments and tons of positive reactions.
Looks like she's figuring out how to handle opposition weapons - with a goddamn Auto-cast + Reflect materia setup. And I'm not talking about Trump's level 1 "no u" version.
People who are running a good campaign continue to run a good campaign. A stunning development.
I'm not going to lie, bring able to respond well and pivot off of unfair attacks was like my number one concern with a Warren run
So this isn't actually a scandal at all, and like with many of the other attacks, Warren is now using it positively for her campaign.
This morning, her Facebook account posted her story of being informed her job was no longer available to her for the next year as a result of her pregnancy. She then invited other women to share their own stories about being fired for being pregnant and the like while calling for greater protections in the workplace.
Within 3 hours it had nearly 1000 comments and tons of positive reactions.
Looks like she's figuring out how to handle opposition weapons - with a goddamn Auto-cast + Reflect materia setup. And I'm not talking about Trump's level 1 "no u" version.
People who are running a good campaign continue to run a good campaign. A stunning development.
I'm not going to lie, bring able to respond well and pivot off of unfair attacks was like my number one concern with a Warren run
I mean, we'll have to see if the pivot works right? A response that seems convincing and snappy to her supporters is only that.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
You think the US government would be investing insane amounts of money into inventing increasingly sophisticated ways of killing very far away people if it was not waging war all the time? Maintain the worlds largest army without ever deploying any of it?
Well...yes? Intimidating everyone else into peace hasn't worked all the time, but broadly speaking that's been the plan for the last seventy or so years. Whether you call it American Imperialism or Pax Americana, that is the goal.
If the goal is to not wage war the US is doing an incredibly bad job of it. These last seventy years or so have had them at war for most of it.
The second question is rhetorical because the US is deploying its armed forces all the time.
So this isn't actually a scandal at all, and like with many of the other attacks, Warren is now using it positively for her campaign.
This morning, her Facebook account posted her story of being informed her job was no longer available to her for the next year as a result of her pregnancy. She then invited other women to share their own stories about being fired for being pregnant and the like while calling for greater protections in the workplace.
Within 3 hours it had nearly 1000 comments and tons of positive reactions.
Looks like she's figuring out how to handle opposition weapons - with a goddamn Auto-cast + Reflect materia setup. And I'm not talking about Trump's level 1 "no u" version.
People who are running a good campaign continue to run a good campaign. A stunning development.
I'm not going to lie, bring able to respond well and pivot off of unfair attacks was like my number one concern with a Warren run
You know Trump is gonna go back to the "Pocahontas" well. (If not for impeachment I would have expected it to be happening right now) I'm still curious and slightly worried how she's gonna react to it.
I'm sure her campaign has spent like a thousand hours of planning on that very thing though because any competent campaign would have prepared for that obvious attack.
So this isn't actually a scandal at all, and like with many of the other attacks, Warren is now using it positively for her campaign.
This morning, her Facebook account posted her story of being informed her job was no longer available to her for the next year as a result of her pregnancy. She then invited other women to share their own stories about being fired for being pregnant and the like while calling for greater protections in the workplace.
Within 3 hours it had nearly 1000 comments and tons of positive reactions.
Looks like she's figuring out how to handle opposition weapons - with a goddamn Auto-cast + Reflect materia setup. And I'm not talking about Trump's level 1 "no u" version.
Very disappointed you did not make a W-Summon reference.
For me I'm not going to vote for a primary candidate based on what bullshit lie the GOP might tell about them. I am not going to be afraid of the boogeyman.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a week after suffering a heart attack in Las Vegas, said on Tuesday that he planned to slow down his pace on the campaign trail and acknowledged that voters would likely consider his health when deciding whether to vote for him.
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I can't see him bowing out before any votes are cast. That would be heart-wrenching for his supporters and staff, but I wonder if this signals a drawdown of his campaign?
He'll be at the next debate, yes?
+5
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I have to say, I'm starting to find the Warren scandals increasingly precious.
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I can't see him bowing out before any votes are cast. That would be heart-wrenching for his supporters and staff, but I wonder if this signals a drawdown of his campaign?
He'll be at the next debate, yes?
Not enough information to say for sure from a medical standpoint. However, I can say that he's showing too much insight to have a terrible prognosis.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I can't see him bowing out before any votes are cast. That would be heart-wrenching for his supporters and staff, but I wonder if this signals a drawdown of his campaign?
He'll be at the next debate, yes?
Theyve said they have no intention of missing it, and while anything can happen of course, it seems a reasonable goal do far.
Imagine that this will mean they focus on fewer larger events for the time being, rather than going to townhalls everywhere like he has been.
joe's "millennials should stop whining and eating avocado toast" message really resonated with diane "i'm sorry, a future is too expensive sweetie, so please get out of my office" feinstein
I have to say, I'm starting to find the Warren scandals increasingly precious.
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
Yeah, some of the things she's said about Israel and Palestine are way more serious
Such as?
I shared a bunch of them in this thread....2 days ago I think?
You posted a link to some somewhat short interview answers she did and a long socialist article and summed up your view on her as an unacceptable Obama clone on Israel. I am not sure what your nuanced views are because I didn't read the article and don't plan to.
I know she is staunchly pro-Israel, critical and unsympathetic to Hamas and their tactics, and is a proponent of a two state solution where Israel concedes some territory and the US props up a docile Palestinian state indefinitely. Is there anything else?
I have to say, I'm starting to find the Warren scandals increasingly precious.
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
Yeah, some of the things she's said about Israel and Palestine are way more serious
Such as?
I shared a bunch of them in this thread....2 days ago I think?
You posted a link to some somewhat short interview answers she did and a long socialist article and summed up your view on her as an unacceptable Obama clone on Israel. I am not sure what your nuanced views are because I didn't read the article and don't plan to.
I know she is staunchly pro-Israel, critical and unsympathetic to Hamas and their tactics, and is a proponent of a two state solution where Israel concedes some territory and the US props up a docile Palestinian state indefinitely. Is there anything else?
is that... not enough?
surely "staunchly pro-israel" is already an ethical concern
I have to say, I'm starting to find the Warren scandals increasingly precious.
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
Yeah, some of the things she's said about Israel and Palestine are way more serious
Such as?
I shared a bunch of them in this thread....2 days ago I think?
You posted a link to some somewhat short interview answers she did and a long socialist article and summed up your view on her as an unacceptable Obama clone on Israel. I am not sure what your nuanced views are because I didn't read the article and don't plan to.
I know she is staunchly pro-Israel, critical and unsympathetic to Hamas and their tactics, and is a proponent of a two state solution where Israel concedes some territory and the US props up a docile Palestinian state indefinitely. Is there anything else?
is that... not enough?
surely "staunchly pro-israel" is already an ethical concern
On these boards, ehhh probably.
In this Country? You're shitting me right? Hahhaahahhahahahahahahahahahah
I have to say, I'm starting to find the Warren scandals increasingly precious.
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
Yeah, some of the things she's said about Israel and Palestine are way more serious
Such as?
I shared a bunch of them in this thread....2 days ago I think?
You posted a link to some somewhat short interview answers she did and a long socialist article and summed up your view on her as an unacceptable Obama clone on Israel. I am not sure what your nuanced views are because I didn't read the article and don't plan to.
I know she is staunchly pro-Israel, critical and unsympathetic to Hamas and their tactics, and is a proponent of a two state solution where Israel concedes some territory and the US props up a docile Palestinian state indefinitely. Is there anything else?
is that... not enough?
surely "staunchly pro-israel" is already an ethical concern
I just wondered if she had said anything particularly notable besides the aforementioned. It's hard to find all the soundbites politicians say at small events.
Anyone less hawkish than Feinstein represents a drift towards improvement, to me.
I have to say, I'm starting to find the Warren scandals increasingly precious.
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
Yeah, some of the things she's said about Israel and Palestine are way more serious
Such as?
I shared a bunch of them in this thread....2 days ago I think?
You posted a link to some somewhat short interview answers she did and a long socialist article and summed up your view on her as an unacceptable Obama clone on Israel. I am not sure what your nuanced views are because I didn't read the article and don't plan to.
I know she is staunchly pro-Israel, critical and unsympathetic to Hamas and their tactics, and is a proponent of a two state solution where Israel concedes some territory and the US props up a docile Palestinian state indefinitely. Is there anything else?
is that... not enough?
surely "staunchly pro-israel" is already an ethical concern
I just wondered if she had said anything particularly notable besides the aforementioned. It's hard to find all the soundbites politicians say at small events.
Anyone less hawkish than Feinstein represents a drift towards improvement, to me.
Thats just the thing, if she's less of a hawk than baseline Democrats there's precious little evidence for it.
Bernie will probably need to name a running mate early and run as a "two for the price of one" deal so that supporters can be assured he will be replaced by a socialist that they like should his health worsen.
Posts
I might have been able to keep the job if I'd quit breastfeeding my child and spent less time with him (and thrown all parental responsibilities on my husband) but I was too exhausted to fight, either against the company or against my maternal instincts. I decided to quit before I was fired. Luckily I found another job within a week, and luckily the kid weaned himself simultaneously, but it was a dark time.
Yeah, this could really be a strength for Warren in the campaign.
The problem isn't the GOP and whatever they will put out into their right-wing hate-o-sphere (thanks @override367 ). The problem is the mainstream media and their reliance on a horse-race narrative, or really just both-siding and focusing on "scandals". Like with the current Biden stuff. This is not an election year so the focus is mainly on Trump, but they still have to report on whatever new uninteresting detail they find out about Hunter Biden and stuff. It doesn't work with blatantly made up stuff, the Swift Boat stuff was mostly ignored by the media, but when there is even a little something they go off.
This would all be less of an issue if it weren't for Trump's seeming immunity to scandals and his knack for making the focus his attacks. Trump will not let the election be about something like policy if he can help it.
Wow. Just straight owning the evil there.
To keep this on topic, yes - this is an issue that could resonate with approximately half of the population. Probably a bad choice to attack her own if she's just going to flip it around this way.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Dude, the US builds more shit then it needs constantly. The defence industry is more about make work and make money then it is make war. That's why the F-35 is built in like every contiguous state in the union. That's why you will see Congress pushing for more funding even when the Pentagon is asking for less. The key word in defence industry is not defence, it's industry. If you don't understand it as a multi-billion dollar industry, you don't understand how it works.
The influence of the defence industry is lobbying to make money. That's why candidates like Warren are trying to attack the influence of defence industry lobbyists on US military spending:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/its-time-to-reduce-corporate-influence-at-the-pentagon-98f52ee0fcf1
Well...yes? Intimidating everyone else into peace hasn't worked all the time, but broadly speaking that's been the plan for the last seventy or so years. Whether you call it American Imperialism or Pax Americana, that is the goal.
It's seen results, too. The US Navy, for instance, is absurdly more powerful than every other navy in the world, but the only ship in commission to sink another in combat is a relic from the Age of Sail. The modern ones haven't needed to.
I don't think this system is fair, or ideal, or maybe even sustainable long-term. The US system of government created this military and then handed it to Donald Trump, and I do not care to see what he might do as he feels increasingly cornered. However, I do not want to gamble on a peaceful hegemonic transition in a world with nuclear weapons, so for now keeping the status quo seems like the least bad option. Consequently, I tend to give the really isolationist candidates a bit more side-eye.
A good example of the grift machine that is the Pentagon; Boehner's district has a defense contractor that has had a marine amphibious tank in development for something on the order of a decade. They have yet to produce a prototype (that I'm aware of), and marine corps generals have stated that they are not interested in development of an amphibious tank. Yet this company still gets funding.
I can't find the original article that talked about this; his district is home to an important factory that produces the Abrams Tank though
The pentagon needs a long and thorough audit and swift kick to the ass for anyone still receiving/approving contracts like this.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This is all reaching crisis mode now, as the combination of China advancing and selling missile technology that can make our carrier fleets obsolete and everybody making cheaper and cheaper drones means that all the boondoggles are what we built while the rest of the world focused on creating disruptive technological leaps.
More shit than you need is not the same as shit you don't need at all. You're acting like the US government could just as well be spending all that money in any other industry. They just coincidentally picked the defence industry?
like, you can't be backing up your argument with empirical evidence because the US has been at war for almost all the time since WW2. You're offering a counterfactual, and your argument is based on the F-35 being built in multiple places?
I'm not going to lie, bring able to respond well and pivot off of unfair attacks was like my number one concern with a Warren run
I mean, we'll have to see if the pivot works right? A response that seems convincing and snappy to her supporters is only that.
If the goal is to not wage war the US is doing an incredibly bad job of it. These last seventy years or so have had them at war for most of it.
The second question is rhetorical because the US is deploying its armed forces all the time.
You know Trump is gonna go back to the "Pocahontas" well. (If not for impeachment I would have expected it to be happening right now) I'm still curious and slightly worried how she's gonna react to it.
I'm sure her campaign has spent like a thousand hours of planning on that very thing though because any competent campaign would have prepared for that obvious attack.
Very disappointed you did not make a W-Summon reference.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We're not. We're going with "look at how candidates turn completely stupid talking points to their advantage."
Obvs I'm not talking about the native american/warren nonsense, we don't know the play on that yet.
First line:
He'll be at the next debate, yes?
Warren might not have been fired three decades ago!
Warren had a slightly problematic understanding of the nuances of native American culture, and then apologized!
You forget that she also fucked the brains out of a marine who was in his late 20’s.
Yeah, some of the things she's said about Israel and Palestine are way more serious
Such as?
I shared a bunch of them in this thread....2 days ago I think?
Not enough information to say for sure from a medical standpoint. However, I can say that he's showing too much insight to have a terrible prognosis.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Theyve said they have no intention of missing it, and while anything can happen of course, it seems a reasonable goal do far.
Imagine that this will mean they focus on fewer larger events for the time being, rather than going to townhalls everywhere like he has been.
Feinstein is backing Biden over Harris
Makes sense. They're the same wing of the party.
Damn, I want to give poor Bernie a hug. What a week.
That being said, my reaction to that news is "okay." I don't think Biden gets the slightest bump from that endorsement.
You posted a link to some somewhat short interview answers she did and a long socialist article and summed up your view on her as an unacceptable Obama clone on Israel. I am not sure what your nuanced views are because I didn't read the article and don't plan to.
I know she is staunchly pro-Israel, critical and unsympathetic to Hamas and their tactics, and is a proponent of a two state solution where Israel concedes some territory and the US props up a docile Palestinian state indefinitely. Is there anything else?
Yeah obvious endorsement is obvious.
pleasepaypreacher.net
is that... not enough?
surely "staunchly pro-israel" is already an ethical concern
On these boards, ehhh probably.
In this Country? You're shitting me right? Hahhaahahhahahahahahahahahahah
I just wondered if she had said anything particularly notable besides the aforementioned. It's hard to find all the soundbites politicians say at small events.
Anyone less hawkish than Feinstein represents a drift towards improvement, to me.
Thats just the thing, if she's less of a hawk than baseline Democrats there's precious little evidence for it.