Camacho was also ultimately able to work with others for the common good, I think there's a big difference there.
I wonder what future historians will think when they observe the very near release of Idiocracy and election of Donald Trump.
To the first point: entire sectors have grown to depend on the employment of undocumented immigrants. When the right wanted to crack down on illegal immigration in France, restaurant owners protested. Farming and construction are other notorious examples. If you remove that workforce from the country, you automatically raise the cost of a number of things and you slow down the economy. Do with that what you want. And do let me know how that's working out for the US.
To the second point: I do not see where you're going with this. NATO has worked well and we're all happy about that. It is becoming unreliable so the need to not rely on it is increasing. The fact that it has worked in the past is irrelevant to the fact that it is unreliable in the present, and that nobody sane should bet on it being reliable in the future. It's not rocket science.
I think anger might trickle up first.
Thank you for displaying your dishonesty, lack of integrity and/or stupidity. This discussion is now over.
Actually, once you take out the 50 odd muslim countries, most of the world's population has no views on Israel/Jews, one way or another. More often than not, Leftist parties in those countries tend to be anti-Israel, while Rightist parties in those countries tend to be either agnostic or pro-Israel. In the UN, you have a diplomatic club where everybody votes anti-Israel regardless of their own governments b'cos they want to keep getting invited to international cocktail parties in DC. Or b'cos their governments are bribed by countries like Qatar or Turkey to be hostile to Israel
"Once you remove all the inconvenient data points, and embrace the very specific bias that I have, you start to see things my way".
Reality matters. These fifty Muslim countries matter, I don't see why their opinion should be ignored. By the way, having no view on something is not supporting it. The regime in Iran before the Islamic revolution was supported by the CIA, and the Islamic revolution was initially a multipartite revolution that the Islamic fundamentalists appropriated. The population was fed up with the CIA-backed monarchy. Also I'm not sure why you mention "Jews", we were taking about Israel. If you equate Jewishness with Israel then you are just repeating propaganda. There's plenty of Jews all over the world that are critical of Israel - including in Israel.
I'll leave here a reference to this UN vote as an example that what you say is not supported by reality.
You are using a lot of words to confirm that you were lying by omission. How about the US stops all aid to Israel and let's see what happens? The US doesn't seem interested in finding out, and that was already true under Biden. Which all contradicts your claim that Israel can take care of itself. It can't without the support of the US.
You seem to assume that a democratic regime will automatically support Israel. There is no evidence for that. In fact, most of the world's democracies do not support Israel.
Dude seek help, I mean that in the kindest way possible.
Arms, yeah, but every country buys them from a willing seller.
This is a lie by omission. Israel also gets financial support from US taxpayer money, and also gets military support paid for with US taxpayer money. It's not just Israel buying weapons from the US.
These two parties are nationalist parties. Can we please not give any credit to what nationalists want? History books are full of reasons why we should never listen to nationalists.
What do you think would happen to European economies without all these migrants who are there illegally? A number of sectors depend on their employment very heavily. The US are cracking down on (supposedly) illegal immigration, how is that working out for them? The human rights and personal freedom are down the drain, surely there's a benefit? And I mean real measurable benefits. Making racist people happier doesn't count. Did the crackdown have an impact on the cost of groceries?
And yes I have heard of NATO but now you're just making my point for me: the US are making it increasingly clearer that European members of NATO shouldn't rely on NATO, even though the US relied on it quite heavily when invading Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO was a nice idea while it was reliable. I hope it becomes reliable again. Until it does, you are making my point for me.
Police was already faking evidence (for example planting drugs). This is a new technical mean to do it more easily and more convincingly. The issue until now is underwhelming accountability.
Others have already addressed your second point (which I partially agree with) below, let's look at your first point:
Unfortunately the EU has become a lot more than a trading coalition, that was the whole damn problem. No one had an issue with the EEC, then Mastricht happened which was a federalists wet dream.
Not sure what a federalist wet dream is in your mind, but I'll say this: before the EU, Europe was always at war. Since then, not a single war between EU members. And it's a safe bet that Russia would be a lot more aggressive and expansionist if there wasn't a political Union. Trade was enough to deter war for some time, but it isn't any more. The EU tried to develop a trade-based relationship with Russia and while it worked for a while, it doesn't anymore. So Europe needs a political union.
Additionally, the EU has generally lifted human rights upward. While the EU is not the same as the council of Europe, their history and existence are connected, and every EU country has signed the European convention on Human rights, which I hope we agree is a good thing.
We can try to define, shall we? Here's my attempt. Two inclusive conditions:
1) inciting violence
2) judging someone for who they are rather than based on the evidence of their actions
Of course I'm just pulling this out of my arse, there certainly are better definitions. And of course a definition is just the beginning, then there's the question of agreeing on whether certain behaviours match the definition or not. But we shouldn't give up just because it's hard. Or are you claiming that it is generally impossible to define hate speech? If yes, you have to prove that.
I think it depends on how you define "airing". It's an interview by NBC and the whole thing is on NBC's official YouTube channel.
The other thing is, you can show this interview to as many Trump supporters as you want, they will still believe his lies and do mental gymnastics to rationalise his contradictions. And to be fair I think it's not just Trump voters; as a species, we're not as great at rational thinking as we think we are.
Beware the new TTY code!
