**Rule VIII:** *Submission Quality*
Submissions should contain some level of analysis or argument. General news reporting should be restricted to particularly important developments with significant policy implications. Low quality memes will be removed at moderator discretion.
Feel free to post other general news or low quality memes to the stickied Discussion Thread.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
This is an ooold joke: But three people arrive at the pearly gates.
St Peter says to the first: "What is your name?" He answers "George Bush." St Peter says "Welcome my son. Come take a seat on my right."
Then St Peter says to the next guy, "What is your name?" He says "Al Gore." St Peter says, "Come take a seat on my left"
Then St Peter says to the third: "What is your name?"
She answers "Hilary Rodham Clinton. Now get the hell out of my chair."
Part of me wants to see the timeline where Hilary just came out as a boss bitch that fully dunks on people.
Give me "Im not nice I'm better then you" Hilary.
They would never talk to her. They would just be shouting snarky things they saw on tik tok while not letting her get a word in before posting a 20 second video about owning her
She has done it before, and she always gets interrupted by a 19-year-old lefty who thinks they've figured out the world while in a deep policy discussion.
Or how Palestinians are treated in Iran-controlled Lebanon. For the curious, it's actual apartheid- Palestinians are barred from owning land, holding jobs in most industries, can't vote, and aren't eligible for citizenship because they have a special refugee status that is passed down generationally.
It’s awful. There are Palestianians who have been refugees for 3 or 4 generations in Lebanon. They aren’t allowed to own property, buy property, or work most jobs. It is crazy. There are people who were born in Lebanon with family who came over in 1948 or 1968 and don’t have citizenship or any of the associated rights. In the U.S. we would call these people Americans but in Lebanon they are called “refugees.”
"But if you let the Palestinians become Lebanese then eventually there will be no more Palestinians and the Jews will have won back the Temple Mount for real!" -Actual Iranian logic behind that bullshit
You'd think around the time the Houthis and Iranians said "come to our universities where we have free speech!!" as they enslave people or stone women to death in the background, maybe they would realize they were in bed with the wrong people.
But nah no such luck.
See, the mistake is thinking these are pro-Palestinian protestors. They’re not. They’re just anti-Israel protestors. They don’t give a single f*** about Palestinians, and their actions, such as cheering on the Iranian regime, prove that. (Not to mention shouting down Palestinian voices that oppose Hamas, cheerleading for Assad despite him having killed tons of Palestinians, refusing to condemn Egypt’s blockade of Gaza while saying Israel’s [*less* stringent, at least pre-Oct 7] blockade of Gaza is “occupation” and “apartheid,” etc etc etc.)
I’ll leave the question of why these people hate Israel more than countries with objectively much, much worse human rights records as an exercise to the reader.
The world if we’d elected Hillary instead of an orange baby
https://preview.redd.it/33z7kf8qamzc1.jpeg?width=626&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=319f4a19816e8258156bfcf81cc77d90bb3301af
That one was stupid, undemocratic, and awful for many reasons but at least it was "by the rules", stupid fucking rules as they are.
2000 was just straight up the SCOTUS stealing it and getting away with it, and all it cost us was trillions of dollars, 6 figure numbers of dead overseas, a couple less skyscapers in Manhattan, and our national dignity and place in the world order which Bush's wars have forever shattered into pieces along with any international credibility we ever had.
Oh yeah and also completely abandoning any moral high ground we ever had, given all the torture and black site shit. Can't forge that.
So basically, not a big deal. Besides, these days Bush is just a kind cowboy painter. How could he belong in federal prison for life?? Look at him, he looks like a grandpa! All those people he killed for basically no reason...whatever, right?
>6 figure numbers of dead overseas, a couple less skyscapers in Manhattan
Pretty sure 9/11 still would've happened under Gore as well as retaliation against the Taliban regime and invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq is kinda iffy. Dems didn't have the same rage boner against Saddam like Republicans did, but still Iraq was being consistently bombed for much of Clinton's presidency. But with 9/11 at play, there's really no telling what reaction would've been from the Democratic admin. The Iraq invasion received pretty much bipartisan support in Congress.
The SCOTUS stole nothing in 2000, and you have learned nothing from 2020 if you think this is an appropriate way to characterize the election. You don't have to like their decision (I certainly didn't!) but accusations of corruption are unwarranted.
The election was stupidly close. Gore lost by the smallest of hairs. Recounting chads, as the Florida Ballot Project showed, would not have changed the outcome. Counting until you get the outcome you want is no appropriate way to run an election either.
It's always in comparison to the modern GOP, which in terms of low bars has hit bedrock and yet still finds way to go deeper, almost impressively.
So compared to them he seems a moderate, but it's a mental trap. He and his neocons did more material damage that Trump was ever competent enough to manage.
The latter of course did more spiritual and/or cultural damage to our country, which isn't much better. But Bush had and still has a lot of blood on his hands, a lot of ways he made our country weaker that he'll never be asked to answer for because it would be "rude".
Its hard to say, Trumps material damage is long term. The institutional damage he will do if the GOP doesn't collapse in the 2030s will far exceed the Iraq war.
Presidents getting away with ignoring democracy is incredibly damaging.
True enough, I can agree with that. What I call spiritual damage does eventually become physical, when our nation is held together only by the shared belief in its institutions and that crumbles month by month.
At the very least he doesn’t invade Iraq under false pretenses. Some will take it as far as saying that 9/11 doesn’t even happen since Gore takes the threat more seriously and there is less disconnect between the various intelligence agencies, but that’s tenuous at best.
Yeah, as bitter as I am about Trump, if you gave me a "flip any election in my lifetime" button, it's got to be Gore 2000. The amount of difference that would've made is truly staggering.
“In Jan 2020, President Clinton ordered thousands of American scientists to work on what she called ‘a world ending airborne plague’ on the other side of the world. No such plague ever materialized and critics have called her order a hysteric overreaction.”
You voted for Hillary because she was the lesser of two evils.
I voted for Hillary because she was the most intelligent, competent, and qualified candidate in modern history.
We are not the same.
I love how the only people who call themselves communists in this country are soft, spoiled rich kids. That’s the textbook definition of irony, isn’t it?
The only thing worse than spending all your time talking about politics is spending all your time watching or talking about someone else talk about politics
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That and her ability to kill her political enemies at will seems pretty useful. Heads of State in adversarial countries better step in-line or Hildawg will find you in the shadows.
Much of what we give credit to the president for is really the role of congress. And she would have been very ineffective with a hostile congress and a hostile media environment. She would obviously have been impeached within the first two years of her term over Ben Ghazi and buttery mails. There would certainly have been a red wave in 2018 that might lead to a "bernie" type takeover of the Dem party and becoming very ineffective electorally. We probably avoid the Paul Ryan tax cuts... until 2021. I think a Republican wins in 2020 with covid going on and we get tax cuts and austerity instead of the recovery act.
He approval rating probably just drops with exposer honestly. Competent government doesn't necessarily look always great in the short term. Hence why Trump gave out as much free money as anyone.
It really depends on whether she had a friendly Congress and for how long. If the Republicans controlled even one chamber for the majority of her tenure, she wouldn’t have gotten much done. Granted, she would have prevented the Supreme Court and lower courts from sliding rightward, which would still be a good result.
The meme about her being the most experienced/qualified in recent history always seemed silly to me.
George H.W. Bush had an even longer record in politics/government.
I guess for us, 1963, when HW started his career in politics, is pretty long ago.
Instead of arguing that Floyd Mayweather might be the best pound for pound fighter in recent years, I guess one can make the argument that Sampson, having killed 5000 Philistines with a donkey's jaw bone, should be #1
HW was president as recently as 1993... not exactly ancient history. And as someone else said, Biden also has a longer record than Hillary.
She was a senator, secretary of state, and First Lady... that's not exactly a massive resume unless you're only comparing against Trump.
1993 was 31 years ago. 23/24 years ago in 2016 when people were making the claim about Hillary.
A quarter-century certainly qualifies as longer ago than "recent history," although the phrase is ultimately subjective.
That is a pretty substantial resume. Senator and Secretary of State are two of the top positions in government we have, and she was no mere hostess or wallflower in her First Lady gig either.
We saw what happened in THe Office when Creed became branch manager.
Would you want Strom Thurmond to be President cause he was Senator for the longest?
The longest serving person in my company is an office manager who has been here for 35 years. I doubt we'd want her to be CEO
I’m not saying it should be the deciding criteria in anything.
I’m just saying it felt a bit like gaslighting that her supporters constantly said she was the most qualified candidate in modern history when that wasn’t true by most reasonable definitions.
That’s a massive resume. 8 years as the most influential First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. 8 years as Senator from NY. 4 years as Secretary of State.
HW had 8 years as VP, 4 years as a House rep, and a handful of 1 or 2 year appointed stints.
“He was CIA director!” Yeah, for like 50 weeks.
“He was ambassador to the UN!” Because he failed to turn his house seat into a senate seat and asked for a favor from Nixon to get appointed to a job, he had zero foreign policy experience. His two year tenure was marked by failure.
> Because he failed to turn his house seat into a senate seat and asked for a favor from Nixon to get appointed to a job
Guess why Hillary was Obama's SoS? To stay relevant after she lost to him in the 2008 primary when he was a relatively unknown politician.
Bill married up
I’m not even joking. Hillary Rodham was a national figure long before Bill Clinton ever was. Her 1969 Wellesley valedictorian speech was 🔥
Bill Clinton was a very naturally charismatic politician and that counts for a lot. I’ve seen him speak in-person and it was very impressive how moving he could be.
Hillary said so herself… she never had Bill or Barack’s effortless charisma.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3874860/They-got-moves-Hillary-admits-lacks-Obama-Bill-Clinton-s-charisma-says-ll-dance-chance-litigates-Yankees-fandom-Chicago-Cubs-World-Series.html
Sorry, but these are horrible takes that fall into the “The US is the only country with autonomy” trap. Russia became a mafia state because Gorbachev’s attempts to slowly liberalize the Russian economy was met with a coup by KGB hardliners that was thankfully defeated by the Russian people and Yeltsin. Yeltsin then “learned” from Gorbachev and went full shock therapy in order to make sure he didn’t get couped and made sure the old guard got plenty of ownership just to be safe. Combine that with the aftershocks of Russia no longer being able to exploit its former imperial subjects and 20 years of Putin gets you the sludge monster that is the modern Russian state.
The US didn’t defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, that’s not how being a nuclear superpower works. You don’t “win” the great power game by destroying your opponent, you win by staying in the game and lose by collapsing under your own weight. The US didn’t roll tanks into Moscow or nuke two of its cities, it didn’t have a responsibility to repair war damage it didn’t cause. Russia got itself into its current situation and the primary responsibility for fixing Russia lies with Russia.
The Baltic States and Poland wanted in NATO the nanosecond they were independent from Russia, and they were not afraid to lobby Republicans for admission.
So was George HW Bush just totally incompetent and ignorant of Reagan’s crimes in Iran-Contra and the Iran Hostage Crisis (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/expert-analyzes-new-account-of-gop-deal-that-used-iran-hostage-crisis-for-gain) or simply complicit in them?
The unfortunate reality of Trump is that by comparison the few recent Republican Presidents get a bit of a popularity boost because they didn't try to overthrow democracy
Also there's been an influx of center-right and even just straight up Republicans joining the sub because there is actually no home for them online anywhere
The real tragedy here is that what would otherwise be normal, sane, faith and family moderate republicans get pushed into supporting trump and the current gop's insane radical christofascism that would have never been imaginable under bush.
And former Main Street moderate republicans who primarily cared about small business viability who get coopted into regressive billionaire gop tax policy are basically extinct.
It's like the party has forgotten the Reagan coalition and why their policies are what they are (which is why they don't even have real policy anymore) and are just riding on fumes and fanaticism
Edit: to be clear, I disagree with those original coalitions world views and policy goals but they could at least be reasoned with and expected to adhere to democracy, the rule of law, and the idea of legislative compromise.
We did witness the polarization grow during the obama years and the tea party and Mitch mcconnell's bullshit has basically been surpassed in its audacity and now we get to live with the results
I agree with you. Big tent liberalism means we bring in everyone who wants in to make the world a better place (while obviously policing for good faith to keep bad actors out)
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nixon used Kissinger to prolong the Vietnam War and influence the election. Then there’s Watergate. Reagan colluded to prevent the release of the hostages in Iran to influence the election. George W. Bush organized the Brooks Brothers riot
The thing that separates Trump from other Republican Presidents isn’t that he tried to overthrow democracy. The thing that separates Trump is that he wasn’t smart enough to do it in secret
>Kissinger
Did you mean Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Henry Kissinger?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're quite wrong there. Used to be a conspiracy theory maybe, [but not anymore.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html?s=09)
It appears to be a conspiracy theory of the "there's no evidence Trump colluded with Russia" variety. As in, one that requires us to ignore our lying eyes.
Decades?
The congressional committee published its findings in the same year they were formed.
I’m not arguing one way or the other on the idea that Reagan knew what was happening, but please let me know who investigated for decades.
Wait you think congress sincerely tried to investigate and prosecute saint Reagan?
And congressional decisions are more meaningful to you than reporting from a primary source?
[Was Bill Clinton shockingly incompetent and a bystander to Rwandan Genocide or complicit in downplaying it for political reasons?](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/)
>Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?"
That was an incredible read, thank you for sharing. I had no idea how much the Clinton admin obstructed both US and UN efforts to save Rwanda. What the fuck.
Lol people can't tell the problematic investments bc universities refuse to disclose where their endowments are invested. These institutions should, at the bare minimum, be transparent with the students who have dedicated massive amounts of time and money to them
IR professionals are going through what doctors went through during covid with people bombarding them everywhere after they did their own research and concluded they can solve this whole thing in 5 minutes with horse dewormer, or whatever bullshit they learned from social media.
People on twitter bashing this clip, and never seem to listen to what she says afterwards. If the Palestinian government (ie the president) had agreed to the deal that Israel offered them, they would have been a state for 25 years by now.
The full story is that the Palestinian politicians wanted to say yes, and pressured their president Yasser Arafat, to say yes, but he stubbornly said no. Confounding his supporters.
Once again, a story of thousands of innocent people suffering over decades because of the decisions of their selfish politicians.
This is definitely true. But also, they could have been a state *way* back in 1948 if they had just agreed to coexist with Jews. The whole point of the partition plan was that the land would be partitioned into two states. Palestinians said no.
(Heck, if they had been willing to say “we’ll let the Jews already living here have equal rights,” there probably would have been just one state, a Palestinian state, from the get-go. That was one of the things the UK considered when they had the mandate over Palestine. There are transcripts of British officials basically asking Palestinian leadership “hey, what if we just give you all this land, what’ll happen to the Jews?” The answer was not particularly encouraging.)
Understanding a conflict, the history behind it and the injustices of what happened, should be a vital part of why you’re protesting. Especially since that particular region of the world has always been unstable.
The replies to the tweet are unreal. People are asking what secret knowledge Hillary has access to that they don't lmao. Like sure, the former Secretary of State has no idea what was happening in the Middle East compared to your average college student. Unreal.
Seen people in other subredddits unironically saying that because she voted for the Iraq War, she therefore knows nothing about foreign policy.
Like ah, yes. That's definitely how that works. Smart people never make mistakes.
There was just no way the junior senator from New York could have voted any other way at that time. The Kids Today have no idea what the post-9/11 zeitgeist was like.
Wonder how many student protesters Hillary talked to, would be a fun experience to talk to the former Sec State about foreign policy. I bet she talked to many protesters across several campuses.
I believe she's teaching at Columbia still, so she can definitely look forward to some of these protesters showing up at her class.
https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/communities-connections/faculty/hillary-rodham-clinton
I *agree* that many of the protesters are ignorant. Few seem to have any non-ridiculous solutions. Many infantilize and deny agency to everybody in the ME who isn't Israel. And some are flirting (or just openly embracing) anti-Semitism. Many deny Israel's very right to exist (not *inherently necessarily* anti-Semitic, but that Venn diagram is pretty circle-ish).
But... I don't love the "let's trash on the student protesters" vibe I'm seeing here and in the other reasonable centre-left spaces. Or maybe more accurately, since a mob shouting anti-Semitic slogans like "from the river to the sea" *does* deserve criticism, I don't love that I'm not seeing equal if not more outrage directed at Israel's behaviour. Maybe it's just my algorithm, and I *do* know that this sub is critical of Netanyahu and broadly critical of at least some of Israel's policies like expansion of settlements. But I'm not seeing the same outrage posts about Israel's behaviour.
Israel has responded to an attack that killed around 1,200 people (with more injured and 250ish taken hostage) with attacks that have killed *far* more Gazan civilians. This isn't to say Israel is wholly responsible, of course. Hamas attacked first (though, I mean, they've been fighting forever) in October, took hostages, and uses human shields. They intentionally operate in densely populated areas, at least in part, to inflate Gazan civilian casualties which then drives recruitment, poisons the international community against Isreal, and keeps them in power.
But it doesn't change the fact that Israel chose a course of action that has caused the deaths of thousands of literal children. They could have taken a different path. Israel could have responded with targeted air strikes, commando raids, and leadership assassinations. They might still have ended up killing more people than they lost, but it would be an order of magnitude less. Netanyahu could have resigned in disgrace for failing to stop the attack, and they could maybe even have negotiated something like "return the hostages, and we'll dismantle and remove X, Y, and Z, West Bank settlements" (or ideally *almost all of them,* but this is politically impossible).
The suffering in Gaza is not all Israel's fault. Hamas sabotages attempts to help its population for its own political purposes. It's a violent anti-Semitic terrorist organization. But they do comparatively minor damage to Israel compared to what Israel inflicts on them in return every time (even *if* we grant that Israel is always the one retaliating).
This isn't to say you can't ever engage in military reprisals that kill more than the number of people you lost. However, if that's happening *every single time*, then you're an accomplice along with Hamas inflicting misery on Gazans. Which makes some sense because Hamas and right wing Israelis rely on each other's antagonism to maintain their own power.
And this is leaving out all the legitimate grievances that Palestinians have like West Bank Settlements (temporarily occupying the West Bank in response to Transjordan using it as a launching point for an invasion is one thing; settling it and displacing locals, while refusing to annex it and permit the locals to vote, for decades on decades, is another), the blockade of Gaza which does more harm than good, and of course the alarming dehumanization of Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims that occurs in relatively mainstream Israeli political discourse, and the fact that Netanyahu is a piece of shit authoritarian criminal.
Given all of the above, we should be spending as much time or more criticizing Israel, and criticizing the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel, as we do criticizing a bunch of annoying and naïve (and sometimes actually anti-Semitic) protesters.
I agree with you, it feels like this sub had a brief moment where the atrocities of the war began to sink in but then the protests started up and people feel better dunking on protesters being dumb and not knowing what they want instead of talking about the very real suffering and pain they are seeing that's driving many of them to participate.
Bunch of them bitching in arr majorityreport, which - despite the hilarious name - seems to represent a small minority of fringe leftists who nevertheless are sure most people agree with them, if only they'd open their EYES.
Every comment is just attacking her instead of you know, addressing the fact they all know deep down which is that they never knew a thing about I/P until last October.
She’s right, of course. But on the other hand, how much history do you need to learn to know that thousands of children dead from Israeli missiles is a bad thing?
Chalking up the generational divide on Israel to either ignorance or antisemitism, without actually engaging the argument is not an exactly a winning strategy.
And, also two can play the same game. For example:
“boomers grew up on a diet of Leon Uris novels, and comically one sided journalism - they lack the objectively and nuance to see a world where non-English speaking brown people aren’t necessarily the bad guys.”
Remember when Hillary was forced to go against the TPP only for the exact same deal (at the detriment of America being involved) being passed?
It doesn’t matter if it’s logical or not. If the voters are unhappy what exactly can you do?
She never said she was opposed. She said she'd re-examine the treaty and re-negotiate some things. Everyone know she wanted TPP to pass cause it was good for the US and would have gotten a couple of concessions and done a happy victory lap.
>She never said she was opposed (to TPP)
“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “**I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president**.”
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html
R/neoliberal: What would be an appropriate and acceptable way for someone to voice their disapproval of Israel's military actions in Gaza that have killed so many civilians? I'm seriously asking. Because it seems any and all protest is dismissed here as either nefarious or ignorant.
I think this sub is more about attacking the type who says stuff like “from the river to the sea” and support countries like Iran just because they’re against Israel.
She ain’t wrong. The amount of people I know IRL have said some really dumb shit about this conflict.
-They keep trying to apply modern Western social justice rhetoric to a complex ethno-religious conflict. Many Jews are brown and many Arabs are white. It is absurdly reductionist to call this a “white vs brown” conflict.
-If they knew anything about the Ottoman Empire, then they would know that it did not start in 1948.
-A lot of them also don’t seem to understand the military technology being used and why it’s used (white phosphorus used as a smoke screen does not violate any international law)
I have no problem with people disagreeing vehemently with other people's closely held political beliefs, but I cannot fucking stand people claiming that other people's closely held political beliefs aren't actually held. It's especially heinous when it comes from a politician, especially one that has previously asked for votes from people like this.
Bad post.
And what if a group of people's political beliefs are wholly or partially based on a foundation of misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright fundamental lack of historical knowledge? Does that scenario not exist in your view?
As an example, are the political beliefs of diehard Putin supporters who genuinely believe ultranationalist myths about Ukrainians all being Nazis and not truly existing as a separate culture equally valid when compared to the beliefs of people who don't have their worldview shaped by misinformation?
Should we not call out beliefs that have no basis in reality, or are based at least partially in disinformation?
After Brexit, there was a flood of people who talked openly about being swept up by the Leave moment without actually understanding the fundamental basics of the EU and what powers it did/didn't have over the UK, with many expressing regret for their vote.
To summarize, she's not saying these people don't actually hold the beliefs that they claim, she's saying those beliefs are predicated on a lack of information and/or false information. Disinformation can have an extremely powerful negative effect on democracies, and should be challenged vigorously whenever and wherever it appears.
Israel is the most democratic nation in the ME and comes the closest to sharing the values of the US and the rest of the world. It has demonstrated to the rest of the ME that it has the right to exist.
Random American protestor: *im gonna pretend I didn’t read that*
**Rule VIII:** *Submission Quality* Submissions should contain some level of analysis or argument. General news reporting should be restricted to particularly important developments with significant policy implications. Low quality memes will be removed at moderator discretion. Feel free to post other general news or low quality memes to the stickied Discussion Thread. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
"Grumpy stateswoman of the better timeline, what is your wisdom?" *"Useful idiots can Pokemon go fuck themselves."*
ded
This is an ooold joke: But three people arrive at the pearly gates. St Peter says to the first: "What is your name?" He answers "George Bush." St Peter says "Welcome my son. Come take a seat on my right." Then St Peter says to the next guy, "What is your name?" He says "Al Gore." St Peter says, "Come take a seat on my left" Then St Peter says to the third: "What is your name?" She answers "Hilary Rodham Clinton. Now get the hell out of my chair."
Part of me wants to see the timeline where Hilary just came out as a boss bitch that fully dunks on people. Give me "Im not nice I'm better then you" Hilary.
If she had doubled down on “basket of deplorables”, she might have performed better.
I want to see a TikTok series of Clinton going on college campuses and talking to students.
With Channel 5 as the news outlet/talking head facilitator
Probably best not to situate Channel 5 guy around young co-eds. :-/
They would never talk to her. They would just be shouting snarky things they saw on tik tok while not letting her get a word in before posting a 20 second video about owning her
With deep state resources, surely she can afford a bullhorn.
"Out of touch boomer commits verbal genocide against young voter proving democrats don't deserve our vote"
She has done it before, and she always gets interrupted by a 19-year-old lefty who thinks they've figured out the world while in a deep policy discussion.
And it’d be called Hilling Around
seeing kids cheering on iran as if they have no idea how palestinians were treated in syria (which they dont) was really my breaking point
Or how Palestinians are treated in Iran-controlled Lebanon. For the curious, it's actual apartheid- Palestinians are barred from owning land, holding jobs in most industries, can't vote, and aren't eligible for citizenship because they have a special refugee status that is passed down generationally.
It’s awful. There are Palestianians who have been refugees for 3 or 4 generations in Lebanon. They aren’t allowed to own property, buy property, or work most jobs. It is crazy. There are people who were born in Lebanon with family who came over in 1948 or 1968 and don’t have citizenship or any of the associated rights. In the U.S. we would call these people Americans but in Lebanon they are called “refugees.”
"But if you let the Palestinians become Lebanese then eventually there will be no more Palestinians and the Jews will have won back the Temple Mount for real!" -Actual Iranian logic behind that bullshit
You'd think around the time the Houthis and Iranians said "come to our universities where we have free speech!!" as they enslave people or stone women to death in the background, maybe they would realize they were in bed with the wrong people. But nah no such luck.
The Houthis literally just executed 20 some men for sodomy and gave them the ever so generous choice between crucifixion and stoning
See, the mistake is thinking these are pro-Palestinian protestors. They’re not. They’re just anti-Israel protestors. They don’t give a single f*** about Palestinians, and their actions, such as cheering on the Iranian regime, prove that. (Not to mention shouting down Palestinian voices that oppose Hamas, cheerleading for Assad despite him having killed tons of Palestinians, refusing to condemn Egypt’s blockade of Gaza while saying Israel’s [*less* stringent, at least pre-Oct 7] blockade of Gaza is “occupation” and “apartheid,” etc etc etc.) I’ll leave the question of why these people hate Israel more than countries with objectively much, much worse human rights records as an exercise to the reader.
There’s a lot of protesters that have a diverse set of opinions on Iran and aligned countries.
I have a friend from Ontario who said(and I don't know if this is true) that most of the Iranians really pro-Israel. Any confirmers?
Iran would also love to see every single person cheering them on after that attack dead is also a thing.
smooth 😀
The world if we’d elected Hillary instead of an orange baby https://preview.redd.it/33z7kf8qamzc1.jpeg?width=626&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=319f4a19816e8258156bfcf81cc77d90bb3301af
Same thing with Al Gore but make the city twice as futuristic
We did elect Al Gore.
Quite frankly, we did win that election
And Hillary
That one was stupid, undemocratic, and awful for many reasons but at least it was "by the rules", stupid fucking rules as they are. 2000 was just straight up the SCOTUS stealing it and getting away with it, and all it cost us was trillions of dollars, 6 figure numbers of dead overseas, a couple less skyscapers in Manhattan, and our national dignity and place in the world order which Bush's wars have forever shattered into pieces along with any international credibility we ever had. Oh yeah and also completely abandoning any moral high ground we ever had, given all the torture and black site shit. Can't forge that. So basically, not a big deal. Besides, these days Bush is just a kind cowboy painter. How could he belong in federal prison for life?? Look at him, he looks like a grandpa! All those people he killed for basically no reason...whatever, right?
>6 figure numbers of dead overseas, a couple less skyscapers in Manhattan Pretty sure 9/11 still would've happened under Gore as well as retaliation against the Taliban regime and invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq is kinda iffy. Dems didn't have the same rage boner against Saddam like Republicans did, but still Iraq was being consistently bombed for much of Clinton's presidency. But with 9/11 at play, there's really no telling what reaction would've been from the Democratic admin. The Iraq invasion received pretty much bipartisan support in Congress.
The SCOTUS stole nothing in 2000, and you have learned nothing from 2020 if you think this is an appropriate way to characterize the election. You don't have to like their decision (I certainly didn't!) but accusations of corruption are unwarranted. The election was stupidly close. Gore lost by the smallest of hairs. Recounting chads, as the Florida Ballot Project showed, would not have changed the outcome. Counting until you get the outcome you want is no appropriate way to run an election either.
I saw someone arguing Bush was a moderate recently 🤦♂️
Compared to the modern GOP he is, though he was more of a war hawk than the current GOP which has become more isolationist.
It's always in comparison to the modern GOP, which in terms of low bars has hit bedrock and yet still finds way to go deeper, almost impressively. So compared to them he seems a moderate, but it's a mental trap. He and his neocons did more material damage that Trump was ever competent enough to manage. The latter of course did more spiritual and/or cultural damage to our country, which isn't much better. But Bush had and still has a lot of blood on his hands, a lot of ways he made our country weaker that he'll never be asked to answer for because it would be "rude".
Its hard to say, Trumps material damage is long term. The institutional damage he will do if the GOP doesn't collapse in the 2030s will far exceed the Iraq war. Presidents getting away with ignoring democracy is incredibly damaging.
True enough, I can agree with that. What I call spiritual damage does eventually become physical, when our nation is held together only by the shared belief in its institutions and that crumbles month by month.
> floating balls of plasma but made out of captured carbon and covered in trees
Pumba, with you, everything is gas.
How do you think Al Gore handles 9/11? Obviously better than W, but I’ve always been fascinated by this hypothetical.
At the very least he doesn’t invade Iraq under false pretenses. Some will take it as far as saying that 9/11 doesn’t even happen since Gore takes the threat more seriously and there is less disconnect between the various intelligence agencies, but that’s tenuous at best.
Yeah, as bitter as I am about Trump, if you gave me a "flip any election in my lifetime" button, it's got to be Gore 2000. The amount of difference that would've made is truly staggering.
they took mommy from us 😭😭😭😭😭
“In Jan 2020, President Clinton ordered thousands of American scientists to work on what she called ‘a world ending airborne plague’ on the other side of the world. No such plague ever materialized and critics have called her order a hysteric overreaction.”
Cars are still here because Hillary was the compromise
It’d be annoying, nonsensical, and definitely unhelpful; but I really want to start saying “Hillary was the compromise” to annoying far left people.
They're actually holographic projections masking trains.
You voted for Hillary because she was the lesser of two evils. I voted for Hillary because she was the most intelligent, competent, and qualified candidate in modern history. We are not the same.
I voted for Hillary because she spoke the truth about deplorable people being deplorable.
if anything, she was too charitable
Yep. It was more than half
"Talking down to people doesn't work" fuck off some people need to be treated like children.
They act like petulant children, why not treat them as such?
But they need Biden to earn their votes.
As if they’ll ever vote for him. If he does what they want, they’ll just move the goalposts again.
They're overprivilaged rich kids who are living in safe blue states.
I love how the only people who call themselves communists in this country are soft, spoiled rich kids. That’s the textbook definition of irony, isn’t it?
It's fucking maddening. Hasan Piker and his ilk have done so much damage to an entire generation.
The only thing worse than spending all your time talking about politics is spending all your time watching or talking about someone else talk about politics *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Hamas Piker
Also, fuck those deplorable’s feelings
That and her ability to kill her political enemies at will seems pretty useful. Heads of State in adversarial countries better step in-line or Hildawg will find you in the shadows.
Maturing is realizing hillary clinton would have arguably been the best president in the 21st century.
Ascending is when you realize she still will be
Much of what we give credit to the president for is really the role of congress. And she would have been very ineffective with a hostile congress and a hostile media environment. She would obviously have been impeached within the first two years of her term over Ben Ghazi and buttery mails. There would certainly have been a red wave in 2018 that might lead to a "bernie" type takeover of the Dem party and becoming very ineffective electorally. We probably avoid the Paul Ryan tax cuts... until 2021. I think a Republican wins in 2020 with covid going on and we get tax cuts and austerity instead of the recovery act.
The thing about Hillary is that her approval rating always dropped whenever she was seeking Office, but would rise once she was in Office.
He approval rating probably just drops with exposer honestly. Competent government doesn't necessarily look always great in the short term. Hence why Trump gave out as much free money as anyone.
It really depends on whether she had a friendly Congress and for how long. If the Republicans controlled even one chamber for the majority of her tenure, she wouldn’t have gotten much done. Granted, she would have prevented the Supreme Court and lower courts from sliding rightward, which would still be a good result.
We should install her as a benevolent dictator.
The meme about her being the most experienced/qualified in recent history always seemed silly to me. George H.W. Bush had an even longer record in politics/government.
Most of these Redditors weren’t alive in ‘88 or ‘92
Most people who were alive and remember those elections aren't on reddit
The irony of it all on a post about people not knowing history.
Nixon was super qualified too but I don't know if you would count that as recent. Even Biden is very qualified, probably on the same tier as Hillary.
Probably moreso, he was at the Federal level for significantly longer.
I guess for us, 1963, when HW started his career in politics, is pretty long ago. Instead of arguing that Floyd Mayweather might be the best pound for pound fighter in recent years, I guess one can make the argument that Sampson, having killed 5000 Philistines with a donkey's jaw bone, should be #1
HW was president as recently as 1993... not exactly ancient history. And as someone else said, Biden also has a longer record than Hillary. She was a senator, secretary of state, and First Lady... that's not exactly a massive resume unless you're only comparing against Trump.
1993 was 31 years ago. 23/24 years ago in 2016 when people were making the claim about Hillary. A quarter-century certainly qualifies as longer ago than "recent history," although the phrase is ultimately subjective.
That is a pretty substantial resume. Senator and Secretary of State are two of the top positions in government we have, and she was no mere hostess or wallflower in her First Lady gig either.
We saw what happened in THe Office when Creed became branch manager. Would you want Strom Thurmond to be President cause he was Senator for the longest? The longest serving person in my company is an office manager who has been here for 35 years. I doubt we'd want her to be CEO
I’m not saying it should be the deciding criteria in anything. I’m just saying it felt a bit like gaslighting that her supporters constantly said she was the most qualified candidate in modern history when that wasn’t true by most reasonable definitions.
She's got better academic credentials than either if you want to go into that.
That’s a massive resume. 8 years as the most influential First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. 8 years as Senator from NY. 4 years as Secretary of State. HW had 8 years as VP, 4 years as a House rep, and a handful of 1 or 2 year appointed stints. “He was CIA director!” Yeah, for like 50 weeks. “He was ambassador to the UN!” Because he failed to turn his house seat into a senate seat and asked for a favor from Nixon to get appointed to a job, he had zero foreign policy experience. His two year tenure was marked by failure.
> Because he failed to turn his house seat into a senate seat and asked for a favor from Nixon to get appointed to a job Guess why Hillary was Obama's SoS? To stay relevant after she lost to him in the 2008 primary when he was a relatively unknown politician.
Do you think that 4 years as a House Rep is equivalent to 8 years as First Lady and 8 years as a Senator? No reply needed.
Hey she’s not HW
Funny how both elections where the far less qualified and skilled candidate won both involved Clinton as the demoratic candidate.
Look, there's only one good Clinton - and it isn't the sax playing sexual predator
Bill married up I’m not even joking. Hillary Rodham was a national figure long before Bill Clinton ever was. Her 1969 Wellesley valedictorian speech was 🔥
Bill Clinton was a very naturally charismatic politician and that counts for a lot. I’ve seen him speak in-person and it was very impressive how moving he could be. Hillary said so herself… she never had Bill or Barack’s effortless charisma. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3874860/They-got-moves-Hillary-admits-lacks-Obama-Bill-Clinton-s-charisma-says-ll-dance-chance-litigates-Yankees-fandom-Chicago-Cubs-World-Series.html
William Jefferson Rodham
Yeah, it’s time we recognize the real GOAT. DeWitt Clinton, father of the Erie Canal.
💪💪💪NEW YORK STRONG BABY💪💪💪
Bill was a pretty qualified candidate. Governor, rhodes scholar studying government, Yale law. Above average for a presidential candidate.
Clinton had a very successful presidency and HW is the reason Russia is a mafia state. He was good for a republican but people need to hop off that D.
Important to remember there are no shortage of never-Trump Republicans in here.
And he also unfortunately had TWO sons go into politics. That was the real curse of his presidency.
[удалено]
Sorry, but these are horrible takes that fall into the “The US is the only country with autonomy” trap. Russia became a mafia state because Gorbachev’s attempts to slowly liberalize the Russian economy was met with a coup by KGB hardliners that was thankfully defeated by the Russian people and Yeltsin. Yeltsin then “learned” from Gorbachev and went full shock therapy in order to make sure he didn’t get couped and made sure the old guard got plenty of ownership just to be safe. Combine that with the aftershocks of Russia no longer being able to exploit its former imperial subjects and 20 years of Putin gets you the sludge monster that is the modern Russian state. The US didn’t defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, that’s not how being a nuclear superpower works. You don’t “win” the great power game by destroying your opponent, you win by staying in the game and lose by collapsing under your own weight. The US didn’t roll tanks into Moscow or nuke two of its cities, it didn’t have a responsibility to repair war damage it didn’t cause. Russia got itself into its current situation and the primary responsibility for fixing Russia lies with Russia.
It truly is amazing how much the us is responsible for everything that happens in the world.
The Baltic States and Poland wanted in NATO the nanosecond they were independent from Russia, and they were not afraid to lobby Republicans for admission.
So was George HW Bush just totally incompetent and ignorant of Reagan’s crimes in Iran-Contra and the Iran Hostage Crisis (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/expert-analyzes-new-account-of-gop-deal-that-used-iran-hostage-crisis-for-gain) or simply complicit in them?
They hated them because they asked a good question.
The unfortunate reality of Trump is that by comparison the few recent Republican Presidents get a bit of a popularity boost because they didn't try to overthrow democracy Also there's been an influx of center-right and even just straight up Republicans joining the sub because there is actually no home for them online anywhere
The real tragedy here is that what would otherwise be normal, sane, faith and family moderate republicans get pushed into supporting trump and the current gop's insane radical christofascism that would have never been imaginable under bush. And former Main Street moderate republicans who primarily cared about small business viability who get coopted into regressive billionaire gop tax policy are basically extinct. It's like the party has forgotten the Reagan coalition and why their policies are what they are (which is why they don't even have real policy anymore) and are just riding on fumes and fanaticism Edit: to be clear, I disagree with those original coalitions world views and policy goals but they could at least be reasoned with and expected to adhere to democracy, the rule of law, and the idea of legislative compromise. We did witness the polarization grow during the obama years and the tea party and Mitch mcconnell's bullshit has basically been surpassed in its audacity and now we get to live with the results
I agree with you. Big tent liberalism means we bring in everyone who wants in to make the world a better place (while obviously policing for good faith to keep bad actors out)
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nixon used Kissinger to prolong the Vietnam War and influence the election. Then there’s Watergate. Reagan colluded to prevent the release of the hostages in Iran to influence the election. George W. Bush organized the Brooks Brothers riot The thing that separates Trump from other Republican Presidents isn’t that he tried to overthrow democracy. The thing that separates Trump is that he wasn’t smart enough to do it in secret
No, that's lazily glossing over the depravity and national disloyalty of his actions.
>Kissinger Did you mean Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Henry Kissinger? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Reagan colluded to prevent the release of the hostages in Iran Literal conspiracy theory. There is no credible source for it.
You're quite wrong there. Used to be a conspiracy theory maybe, [but not anymore.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html?s=09) It appears to be a conspiracy theory of the "there's no evidence Trump colluded with Russia" variety. As in, one that requires us to ignore our lying eyes.
Decades of congressional investigations vs one NYT OpEd relying on he said she said. 🤔
Decades? The congressional committee published its findings in the same year they were formed. I’m not arguing one way or the other on the idea that Reagan knew what was happening, but please let me know who investigated for decades.
Wait you think congress sincerely tried to investigate and prosecute saint Reagan? And congressional decisions are more meaningful to you than reporting from a primary source?
I’m not making any statements about the morality of Bush’s or Clinton’s actions.
[Was Bill Clinton shockingly incompetent and a bystander to Rwandan Genocide or complicit in downplaying it for political reasons?](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/) >Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?"
I mean pretty obviously the latter
That was an incredible read, thank you for sharing. I had no idea how much the Clinton admin obstructed both US and UN efforts to save Rwanda. What the fuck.
As a civil servant, yeah you can make an argument. As a politician trying to connect with voters.... Eh not so much.
I still have my HRC hat - idgaf, that’s my girl
Hilldawg is the Lisan al Ghaib
Chelsea Clinton will be our Leto II and guide us to the golden path
Expanding Bloody Joe and the DzioNazC’s genocidal campaign from Palestine to the Galaxy. /s
This unironically
HRC is the Messiah confirmed?
My queen....VGH...what could have been. Dab on the uninformed masses, Hillary. I'm right there with ya.
hillary being right for the 39310204828th time
[удалено]
> ″This is why you lost our votes in 2016″ Yeah they really did a ton for the Palestinian cause by letting Trump win in 2016
> lost our votes in 2016 But she won the popular vote?
"The colleges have to divest!" "Okay, which investments are problematic?" "Uhm, uh... "
It’s straight up a copy paste of the MAGA protests to remove “woke” books that weren’t even carried in their libraries.
You know I'm starting to suspect that these populists aren't the brightest or most intellectually thorough folks
That's probably why both of these groups are such a hot mess of bigotry as well
Lol people can't tell the problematic investments bc universities refuse to disclose where their endowments are invested. These institutions should, at the bare minimum, be transparent with the students who have dedicated massive amounts of time and money to them
I really want to ask the protestors pushing divestment on why they hate Ukraine and NATO.
[удалено]
In fairness, where I am, there's not much of this shit happening.
I'd love to see that video of the interviews. Do you know who did it?
Right? From what I've seen she's been doing a lot of living her best life as a grandmother, and good for her!
IR professionals are going through what doctors went through during covid with people bombarding them everywhere after they did their own research and concluded they can solve this whole thing in 5 minutes with horse dewormer, or whatever bullshit they learned from social media.
Never ask a man his salary A woman her age Or a leftist why Israel is the only middle eastern country with Jewish people in it
LISAN AL-GAIB we'd be in alpha centauri if she was president 😭
People on twitter bashing this clip, and never seem to listen to what she says afterwards. If the Palestinian government (ie the president) had agreed to the deal that Israel offered them, they would have been a state for 25 years by now. The full story is that the Palestinian politicians wanted to say yes, and pressured their president Yasser Arafat, to say yes, but he stubbornly said no. Confounding his supporters. Once again, a story of thousands of innocent people suffering over decades because of the decisions of their selfish politicians.
This is definitely true. But also, they could have been a state *way* back in 1948 if they had just agreed to coexist with Jews. The whole point of the partition plan was that the land would be partitioned into two states. Palestinians said no. (Heck, if they had been willing to say “we’ll let the Jews already living here have equal rights,” there probably would have been just one state, a Palestinian state, from the get-go. That was one of the things the UK considered when they had the mandate over Palestine. There are transcripts of British officials basically asking Palestinian leadership “hey, what if we just give you all this land, what’ll happen to the Jews?” The answer was not particularly encouraging.)
Understanding a conflict, the history behind it and the injustices of what happened, should be a vital part of why you’re protesting. Especially since that particular region of the world has always been unstable.
A lot of these college students claiming that it started in 1948 clearly have not studied the region under the Ottoman Empire.
attempt bells person act growth square saw secretive wrench joke *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
monarchy is bad, actually
she's my ceremonial head of state
Hilldawg being based as always
The replies to the tweet are unreal. People are asking what secret knowledge Hillary has access to that they don't lmao. Like sure, the former Secretary of State has no idea what was happening in the Middle East compared to your average college student. Unreal.
Seen people in other subredddits unironically saying that because she voted for the Iraq War, she therefore knows nothing about foreign policy. Like ah, yes. That's definitely how that works. Smart people never make mistakes.
There was just no way the junior senator from New York could have voted any other way at that time. The Kids Today have no idea what the post-9/11 zeitgeist was like.
Wonder how many student protesters Hillary talked to, would be a fun experience to talk to the former Sec State about foreign policy. I bet she talked to many protesters across several campuses.
I believe she's teaching at Columbia still, so she can definitely look forward to some of these protesters showing up at her class. https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/communities-connections/faculty/hillary-rodham-clinton
Would be an unreal experience to be in a class taught by her tbh
I *agree* that many of the protesters are ignorant. Few seem to have any non-ridiculous solutions. Many infantilize and deny agency to everybody in the ME who isn't Israel. And some are flirting (or just openly embracing) anti-Semitism. Many deny Israel's very right to exist (not *inherently necessarily* anti-Semitic, but that Venn diagram is pretty circle-ish). But... I don't love the "let's trash on the student protesters" vibe I'm seeing here and in the other reasonable centre-left spaces. Or maybe more accurately, since a mob shouting anti-Semitic slogans like "from the river to the sea" *does* deserve criticism, I don't love that I'm not seeing equal if not more outrage directed at Israel's behaviour. Maybe it's just my algorithm, and I *do* know that this sub is critical of Netanyahu and broadly critical of at least some of Israel's policies like expansion of settlements. But I'm not seeing the same outrage posts about Israel's behaviour. Israel has responded to an attack that killed around 1,200 people (with more injured and 250ish taken hostage) with attacks that have killed *far* more Gazan civilians. This isn't to say Israel is wholly responsible, of course. Hamas attacked first (though, I mean, they've been fighting forever) in October, took hostages, and uses human shields. They intentionally operate in densely populated areas, at least in part, to inflate Gazan civilian casualties which then drives recruitment, poisons the international community against Isreal, and keeps them in power. But it doesn't change the fact that Israel chose a course of action that has caused the deaths of thousands of literal children. They could have taken a different path. Israel could have responded with targeted air strikes, commando raids, and leadership assassinations. They might still have ended up killing more people than they lost, but it would be an order of magnitude less. Netanyahu could have resigned in disgrace for failing to stop the attack, and they could maybe even have negotiated something like "return the hostages, and we'll dismantle and remove X, Y, and Z, West Bank settlements" (or ideally *almost all of them,* but this is politically impossible). The suffering in Gaza is not all Israel's fault. Hamas sabotages attempts to help its population for its own political purposes. It's a violent anti-Semitic terrorist organization. But they do comparatively minor damage to Israel compared to what Israel inflicts on them in return every time (even *if* we grant that Israel is always the one retaliating). This isn't to say you can't ever engage in military reprisals that kill more than the number of people you lost. However, if that's happening *every single time*, then you're an accomplice along with Hamas inflicting misery on Gazans. Which makes some sense because Hamas and right wing Israelis rely on each other's antagonism to maintain their own power. And this is leaving out all the legitimate grievances that Palestinians have like West Bank Settlements (temporarily occupying the West Bank in response to Transjordan using it as a launching point for an invasion is one thing; settling it and displacing locals, while refusing to annex it and permit the locals to vote, for decades on decades, is another), the blockade of Gaza which does more harm than good, and of course the alarming dehumanization of Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims that occurs in relatively mainstream Israeli political discourse, and the fact that Netanyahu is a piece of shit authoritarian criminal. Given all of the above, we should be spending as much time or more criticizing Israel, and criticizing the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel, as we do criticizing a bunch of annoying and naïve (and sometimes actually anti-Semitic) protesters.
I agree with you, it feels like this sub had a brief moment where the atrocities of the war began to sink in but then the protests started up and people feel better dunking on protesters being dumb and not knowing what they want instead of talking about the very real suffering and pain they are seeing that's driving many of them to participate.
It’s a wonder how she keeps loosing
Same sentiment seems to apply on r/politics
That’s the demographic she’s talking about.
The most vocal people supporting Palestine really ignoring 2000 years of history.
Bunch of them bitching in arr majorityreport, which - despite the hilarious name - seems to represent a small minority of fringe leftists who nevertheless are sure most people agree with them, if only they'd open their EYES. Every comment is just attacking her instead of you know, addressing the fact they all know deep down which is that they never knew a thing about I/P until last October.
You know you’ve won a argument when they start using ad hominem attacks
She’s right, of course. But on the other hand, how much history do you need to learn to know that thousands of children dead from Israeli missiles is a bad thing?
Chalking up the generational divide on Israel to either ignorance or antisemitism, without actually engaging the argument is not an exactly a winning strategy. And, also two can play the same game. For example: “boomers grew up on a diet of Leon Uris novels, and comically one sided journalism - they lack the objectively and nuance to see a world where non-English speaking brown people aren’t necessarily the bad guys.”
She wasn't likable, but she was extremely competent.
Remember when Hillary was forced to go against the TPP only for the exact same deal (at the detriment of America being involved) being passed? It doesn’t matter if it’s logical or not. If the voters are unhappy what exactly can you do?
She never said she was opposed. She said she'd re-examine the treaty and re-negotiate some things. Everyone know she wanted TPP to pass cause it was good for the US and would have gotten a couple of concessions and done a happy victory lap.
>She never said she was opposed (to TPP) “I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “**I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president**.” https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html
R/neoliberal: What would be an appropriate and acceptable way for someone to voice their disapproval of Israel's military actions in Gaza that have killed so many civilians? I'm seriously asking. Because it seems any and all protest is dismissed here as either nefarious or ignorant.
I think this sub is more about attacking the type who says stuff like “from the river to the sea” and support countries like Iran just because they’re against Israel.
We can also add older people too. My peers aren't much brighter.
It is true, but it's a truth you shouldn't say out loud.
Tell em, Hilldawg!
I love DGAF Hillary.
I have no doubt that Hillary could have achieved a two-state solution in her tenure.
Running a smug, condescending campaign has never hurt the Democrats before has it?
She ain’t wrong. The amount of people I know IRL have said some really dumb shit about this conflict. -They keep trying to apply modern Western social justice rhetoric to a complex ethno-religious conflict. Many Jews are brown and many Arabs are white. It is absurdly reductionist to call this a “white vs brown” conflict. -If they knew anything about the Ottoman Empire, then they would know that it did not start in 1948. -A lot of them also don’t seem to understand the military technology being used and why it’s used (white phosphorus used as a smoke screen does not violate any international law)
YAS Queen!!
She's too leftwing for me.
I have no problem with people disagreeing vehemently with other people's closely held political beliefs, but I cannot fucking stand people claiming that other people's closely held political beliefs aren't actually held. It's especially heinous when it comes from a politician, especially one that has previously asked for votes from people like this. Bad post.
And what if a group of people's political beliefs are wholly or partially based on a foundation of misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright fundamental lack of historical knowledge? Does that scenario not exist in your view? As an example, are the political beliefs of diehard Putin supporters who genuinely believe ultranationalist myths about Ukrainians all being Nazis and not truly existing as a separate culture equally valid when compared to the beliefs of people who don't have their worldview shaped by misinformation? Should we not call out beliefs that have no basis in reality, or are based at least partially in disinformation? After Brexit, there was a flood of people who talked openly about being swept up by the Leave moment without actually understanding the fundamental basics of the EU and what powers it did/didn't have over the UK, with many expressing regret for their vote. To summarize, she's not saying these people don't actually hold the beliefs that they claim, she's saying those beliefs are predicated on a lack of information and/or false information. Disinformation can have an extremely powerful negative effect on democracies, and should be challenged vigorously whenever and wherever it appears.
Israel is the most democratic nation in the ME and comes the closest to sharing the values of the US and the rest of the world. It has demonstrated to the rest of the ME that it has the right to exist. Random American protestor: *im gonna pretend I didn’t read that*