Candelestine

There was a fair bit of pushback against NAFTA. Additionally, I would point towards things like blocking petroleum exploration and generally pursuing greater business regulation as not very neo-liberal positions.

We can reduce our emissions, and we will. We just can't make everyone else reduce theirs too. Which is why we will need multiple approaches, not just one or two.

That I can agree with. I've been very pleased with the inroads unions have been making in just the past few years.

I can definitely see an argument for Clinton, the champion of NAFTA, moving in a neo-liberal direction, but calling it some broader break-point where the whole democratic party abandoned labor is a much, much broader claim. Wouldn't you say?

I don't understand where this position that dems embraced neo-liberalism and abandoned unions comes from.

Who passed "right to work" laws in state houses all over the country? Who supported money as a form of speech in Citizens United? Who has tried to suppress the raising of the minimum wage at every opportunity?

Not dems, afaik. Dems have consistently fought these things.

This makes me want to stitch every film she's ever been in into one long movie, centered around her as the main char.

Doesn't matter where you fight, only that it is a strong position to defeat Russians from. If Avdiivka has been compromised, then it's time to find a new spot.

Everything is pretend to him. Even the importance of human life. If you think he cares about words, you're sorely mistaken.

We should stop excusing blatant malice as some kind of mistake. He cares about words as much as Hitler actually cared what the word Aryan meant. They recognize that the definitions of words are established by people, so they can make them mean whatever the fuck they want them to mean. They ... give ... no ... fucks. And I mean literally. None of the fucks. Not words, not human rights, not the sanctity of life, none of it. Only power.

edit: Oh, and they think you're fucking stupid for actually caring about dumb shit like "what words mean" when we can exercise power over that.

Fuckin A, why do people insist on writing like this? Trying to pad a word count, or just like wasting people's time with extra, pointless paragraphs out of some love of trolling or something?

Regardless, just remember that the scientific method relies on evidence, not believing random dumbasses on the internet. Which does not constitute evidence.

I think you hit on the main issue, which is that acting is a challenging set of skills, and only a very small percentage of them ever really master it. Like, a handful every generation.

That said, yeah, I could do without the same type-cast folks getting to basically play one character in movie after movie, for instance.

Yeah, when you look at how the build-out of radar capabilities and fighter aircraft pitched in a couple years later you start to see things in a different light.

I think he was playing both sides somewhat, he seemed to genuinely want peace-in-our-time and naively think it was possible, based on his public messaging anyway. But he also allowed a very expensive militarization just in case. A prudent politician, not putting all his eggs in any one basket.

Then when the war began and it became clear he could not keep his country unified after bungling Norway, he very courageously took full responsibility for his soft direction and resigned, taking that whole shame onto his own shoulders, and personally paved the way for a more hard-nosed guy and brilliant public speaker to come in clean and run the actual war. And, most importantly, it all worked. The Battle of Britain was a victory. Britain withstood, protected by the navy and airforce that he funded, where so many others were defeated.

He's a very conflicted figure, but I think he does deserve credit where it's due.

Ooh, neat. Can you do that for us here in the US too?