Manual Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3) book. Happy reading Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3) Pocket Guide.
Fiona McInnes had it all figured out: fabulous career, famous friends and oodles of time to Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3).
Table of contents



Why would you expect them to question it? There was an exactly analogous assumption among Republicans after that they had to find some way to reach Hispanic voters, which turned out to be just about as sincere and just about as necessary. A couple more points as I think about it more. Really, white working class populism was the emergent phenomenon of the election. They are a known phenomenon. You might need to have more charitable takes on say radfems or BLM, but so far they are fringe and ignored. Also, the sort of thoughtful Republicans that would write about understanding Hillary voters are probably themselves not super high on Trump or actively trying to rein him in , so they too are trying to grasp the white working class populism phenomenon.

And that crowd is not happy with the understanding think pieces. Most of the thoughtful think pieces are coming from the middle on both sides. Where are any thoughtful think pieces from the moderate conservatives calling for understanding and compassion towards the immoderate left? Not pieces designed to tell the moderate right they can work with the moderate left. You are trying to claim the situation is symmetric, but I see no evidence of that. I think Glenn Beck has been doing some of this in more recent years and his fall from relevance may be due, in large part, to this decision.

I can think of one thing that used to fit that bill: The part I remember best went something like:. You worry about the disadvantaged classes. Because if you EVER skip that first step of clearly stating your intentions, part of your audience will assume the reason you want insert policy here must be that you are a bad person who kicks puppies and hates babies.

A couple other units of the course involved techniques to let the other person reach conclusions for themselves rather than lecturing at them. One alternative is the Socratic option — ask questions designed to help the other person realize something is wrong and solve for themselves what the better option might be. Another technique was to come up with a really carefully-worded short sound-byte type answer that gets across the gist of your solution while not providing much specific detail — that way the other person can figure out the details or ask you to fill in the ones they most care about.

He has some personality quirks that you might associate with Trumpism, but statistically, the odds seem quite small…. Penny of the early seasons would plausibly have voted for Trump. There are lots of analogies to things like chucking a brick through the window of the Washington establishment. I think a lot of the people that are assumed to be Trump voters on this site did not, actually, vote for him. SSC Survey has people skew heavily left, with liberal i. Libertarians probably split between democrats for social policy and republicans for economic policy.

As someone who has voted Independent, Reform, Libertarian, and even Boston Tea one time, but never GOP, and has maintained a fairly consistent political stance over the past decade or so I find this a bit offensive, but the man is entitled to his opinions. What seems to be lacking is the critical distinction between Trump voter and Trump supporter. Not Being Hillary Clinton. The key aspect of this attitude, of course, is that it is prospective. Any blame falls on Hillary or maybe nebulous primary voters. Are you aware that projection is a thing? I think Conservatives tend to be more realistic than Liberals: Penny is probably a Trump voter, if she bothers to vote, because she is white, not college educated, and attractive.

Penny is largely ignorant of the world and has few strong opinions of her own.

Diamond Girl.

Probably the most likely to see a groping billionaire as an inspirational figure. That would be the nonwhite working class, which by some definitions is larger than the white working class that propelled Trump to victory. I thought this piece claiming that education was the major factor was pretty persuasive. What do you think the Red Tribe misunderstands about the Blue Tribe that you would like corrected? Personally I think both sides understand each other quite well, they just pretend not to in order to make their rhetoric sound more badass.

Conservatives make this even worse when they insist that nationalism is human nature — if this were true, we should be extra vigilant in suppressing it. It would speak well for them if they were, but consequentialism is not intuitive to anyone, and only a tiny fraction of the population ever bothers to develop it. We can play this game all day. Have you considered that public transportation allows the poor to leave their enclaves, making them harder to control?

Have you considered that a population dependent on private vehicles cannot travel anonymously? But this is all pretty silly. We used to have a main bus route that went straight through town from one end to the other and back. No transfers except at hubs, no memorizing a bunch of weird twisty routes.

Now we've got our new system that's supposed to have designed to make everything more accessible, and just happens to route lines that start or end in low-income areas away from the richer parts. Have you considered that a population dependent on government-operated transportation would be much easier to control than a population where everyone owns their own private vehicle? That said, public transportation does not make the poor more mobile in a manner that correlates with decreased control. The government can shut-down or re-route the buses immediately if it wants to.

The buses only go where the government tells them to go. This strikes me as…. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a much more plausible explanation. There are large segments of the left that actively want a cause to crusade for, the bigger the better. Nationalism and socialism both have their body counts, but remember, nationalism did not begin and end with fascism: World War one was a war. Wars between powerful countries seem to occur largely regardless of ideology. Pointing out that capitalism is far from perfect does not disprove, or even bear upon, the claim that revolutionary socialism is uniquely pernicious.

This which-is-worse discussion is important, but sort of orthogonal to the point I intended. The point being, small amounts of it are good and helpful. Taking it too far can lead to disaster. Nationalism of the German Germans wanting Germany to have its place in the sun, feeling that Germany had been unfairly left out of the period of most colonization, and getting the rather stupid idea to try and compete with Britain at sea , Serbian Serbs in Serbia proper believing their brethren under Hapsburg rule should be a part of Serbia , and pan-Slavic Russians seeing themselves as being on the same side as those Serbs varieties certainly played a role, though.

A war might still have happened; people generally find reasons for war, but the war that happened happened in part because of nationalism. I think conservatism has two strong alternatives to nationalism: Admittedly this is a better fit in some countries than others: In a world where the upper class is more cosmopolitan than the lower, national consciousness can easily shade into class consciousness. The particulars are unique in every conflict, of course, but I see nothing fundamentally different about them in WW1 vs any other war. WWI is not some special, different event, and even without nationalism Germany probably still wants more like everyone does , but pan-Slavic nationalism was to some extent behind the Russian desire to back the Serbs, and without Serbian nationalism Franz Ferdinand does not get shot.

Indeed, Stalin was both a socialist and a nationalist. I think that was true of Mao as well. There is control of the individual, but it was never any different and you were always at the mercy of entities larger than yourself such as corporations, so the only way to truly exercise control is to become part of a larger collective, where you will yes, be controlled as always in a literal sense as an individual, but in turn take part as an individual but equal component in the mechanism of control for the whole of society.

There is control of the individual, but also control by the individual. You gain control by transcending your individual weakness and becoming the government. A direct democratic all powerful government that transcends individuality. On an individual level they are being controlled, but since they took part in crafting that mechanism of control as a member of democratic state society, it actually represents a form of agency. What is this kind of statement supposed to mean? The left are also internationalists only ever strategically nationalist , so to them the agency of all humanity should be collectivized, and consequently a national collective would be outvoted by an international collective.

Since they are trying to form such a thing, they want countries to be diversified in terms of culture and race and so on. Anti-immigration means being against a larger humanity and means denying our collective destiny. Some evidence against that position. But I think the appearance of being pro-Islam is a side effect of two other things:. The right is very much concerned about Islamic terrorism and Islam as a threat, and the left is against whatever the right is for. Regarding the left and increased regulatory authority over the economy, increased centralization of political power, and increased redistribution of wealth both intra and inter-nationally, I have to say that this is exactly as convincing a claim as a libertarian saying.

Would you take that statement seriously if, say, Dr. Friedman or Onyomi said it? If not, why should I take that statement seriously when left wing politicians and intellectuals make it about climate policy? Basically, the fact that increasing government control over the economy and the mechanisms of wealth distribution and redistribution are instrumental goals rather than terminal goals does not mean that they are not still -goals-. Regarding nationalism, Nornagest captured it best. Nationalism is simply one form of tribalism. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you try to claim that left wing political philosophies have a monopoly on resistance to tribalism.

Your comparison to libertarianism is a perfect illustration of the mistake. Opposition to a fairly narrow definition of coercion really is central to deontological libertarianism. For one thing, it lets you predict their favored policies.

Home at Last (Mills & Boon Cherish) (The McInnes Triplets, Book 3) PDF Download

Remember, a carbon tax is farther left than cap-and-trade or direct regulation. You would never expect that if you thought this was all a fig leaf for government power. It also tells you that libertarians should be able to make alliances with liberals e. I do not claim that. In what sense is it farther left? Defined by the other views of the people who support each? I would have classified both cap and trade and carbon tax, which are pretty much two variants of the same approach, as less socialist hence less left than direct regulation.

I called it an instrumental goal, as distinct from a terminal goal. Do you understand what those two terms are and how they relate to one another? Of course you would. In a state with even a moderately mixed economy a government without the money to fund its programs and policies or pay its personnel has extremely limited power, and its power increases in direct proportion to the amount of GDP it controls via tax revenue and spending. I would agree, and note that you left out the religious right. Almost as cavalier as the left. Sorry, I was not clear: You are flattening out a potentially important distinction.

As a general rule, when nations grow wealthier, the public demands more and better government services, increasing government spending as a percentage of GDP. Long-term national growth trends are amazingly stable. Basics like stockings and milk were hard to come buy and yet the economy grew at enormous rates. I think that Libertarians and Liberals come to blows so often these days precisely because while they have often had overlapping terminal goals in the past and still do to some extent , their philosophical approaches to achieving those goals are almost polar opposites.

Money can be directed as needed to provide either leverage to boost support for or to pay directly for, say, enforcement of gun control, or for improved public schooling or programs getting more people into college or forgiving student loans, or for more welfare spending, or for the hiring of more EPA inspectors to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, and so on and so forth. This observation also helps to shed light on why the GOP is incapable of meaningful reduction of government revenues and spending.

The state having less power and the state having more power are not symmetric. I would assume that Alice is being genuine, because her argument obviously makes sense. Then please provide an argument with evidence demonstrating that this is not the case. I laid out my reasoning why it -is- the case, and I responded to the article he linked. My core reasoning was never addressed.

You apparently missed the part where I said: Let me restate my argument. Claiming that we need to make X more powerful for whatever value of X in order to achieve Y despite cost Z is very plausible argument, because making things more powerful tautologically increases their goal-achieving ability. Arguments of this form can be dishonest: But if the arguer is only interested in Y, they are probably being genuine.

Requests to make the government bigger by mainstream right-wingers or left-wingers fall in the first category, your libertarian example falls in the second category. That is why they are not symmetrical. Now, one might and you have argued that this is irrelevant. X I think there are two possible cases there. If you think that reducing government size causes economic stimulus as a general rule, you are promoting making it less powerful for its own sake. They would just say that those other things made decreasing the size of the state positive in itself.

They have interests in increasing their own power, but not in e. More importantly, though, the US military has no political influence outside of military questions. And even if such a thing did exist, the size of the military is absolutely dwarfed by civil service bureaucracies. But they benefit from higher taxes only if they are directly linked with higher spending on education, and only if the increase in spending outweighs what they have to pay. US government spending all levels on education and the military is approximately equal.

You picked an unfortunate example. California education spending is indeed directly linked to state revenue. Due to Proposition 98 , education automatically gets a minimum percentage of the state budget and automatically get a raise whenever spending increases. Sometimes they oppose them on moral principles, but more commonly they do so because they think powerful governments have inevitable bad consequences. But then the supposed asymmetry between left and right collapses: Precision matters in this case.

Someone with doctrinaire libertarian views benefits from a weaker, less-well funded government independent of any one policy issue, because they have many policy issues which benefit from that weakness and lack of funding, and their ideal world is one in which the state is smaller than it is now as a share of GDP. But when a libertarian claims that MORE state power is a necessary cost of achieving a goal e.

Someone with mainstream liberal views benefits from a stronger, better-funded government independent of any one policy issue, because they have many policy issues which benefit from that strength and funding and because their ideal world is one in which the state is larger than it is now as a share of GDP. But when a liberal claims that LESS state power is a necessary cost of achieving a goal e. Hopefully, this clarifies things. And to their credit there are liberals willing to bite the bullet and make that argument. First, a much higher share of the of public employees is shielded from taxation pensions, healthcare benefits, etc.

Second, there are more than , people in the union, there are 35 million people in california. Education spending just on primary and secondary education was billion in Spending on tertiary education is at least half again as much. Police and courts whose authority you can opt out of are not police and courts. Police and courts whose authority you cannot opt out of are not private. The court can still pass a judgment against you if you refuse to participate.

So why not just cut off the middlemen and hire someone to kidnap someone at gunpoint into your private prison? That probably depends on how you define courts and police. Robert LeFevre was a libertarian pacifist and reasonably prominent, but pre-web—Prof in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is in part based on him and I believe he was responsible for the father of the Koch brothers becoming a libertarian. I think that as a pacifist he would have opposed police doing the sorts of things we associate with police—using force.

His view, if I correctly understand it, would be that the unwillingness of other people to cooperate with rights violators would be a sufficient sanction. He might have approved of private courts generating the information needed to determine who were rights violators.

The usual anarcho-capitalist models have private courts and people who use force against rights violators. Does anyone know of any dating sites or online communities that cater primarily to the interests of strong introverts? One of my biggest frustrations with modern dating is the mad rush for frequent, in-person interactions. And ultimately, most of them seem to expect multiple dates per week, usually in busy public places, etc. Those sites are generally either for people looking for both physical and emotional intimacy or more often for just physical intimacy. Netflix and chill but those tend to be unserious and primarily physical relationships.

Huh, this suggests that places where there is a strong presupposition that everyone is serious might work better for introverts less need to signal. So, maybe something like eharmony? After awhile you realize you like hanging out more than you like the activities you came up with to justify meeting in public. Once you get over that hump no pun intended there are plenty of relationships that end up being two people just hanging out alone.

Today is actually my weekly date night. We used this to nix going clubbing on a night on vacation recently when we were both already exhausted. Shakespeare in the park would be a stressful and draining experience for me. Which means that if I DO go do it, I end up seeing it as a sacrifice on my part for the sake of the other person. And conflict arises from there. Is it already there and people are just not taking it seriously, or are you not being explicit about it up front, or what? I met my husband on OKCupid, which asked users to honestly take a bunch of personality tests and match based on the results, so introverts would be matched with introverts, etc.

I was very specific about what I was looking for, and very honest and up-front about my quirks, eccentricities, and flaws. This effort was a massive failures. I got very few replies, and zero actual dates. I took their advice and made my profile as general and non-specific as possible.

Success went up, noticeably. But the process was long and draining and emotionally exhausting for me, and none of the dates ever resulted in meaningful relationships. The most logical thing to do is probably to just give up and resign myself to foreveralone or whatever. I know this is some kind of red pill live wire, but it sounds like you should consider a single mom. I was talking to a friend of mine that meets that description and her complaints about online dating were a lot like yours.

Not interested in bars and clubs, etc. Out of curiosity, what makes it a dealbreaker? A general dislike of children 2. A general belief that single parenthood is really irresponsible, to the point of being indicative of a great moral failing such that it is hard for me to respect such people 3.

Long story short both parties in a relationship should gain from being together, how you would have hypothetically acted when you were both very different people many years ago is of minimal importance. My wife refused to date me in college, point blank. I could easily have screwed up a great thing by holding her actual not imagined rejection from years before against her but instead I mostly let it go not that I handled it perfectly, but well enough and that was actually part of what she was looking for maturity.

On the other hand there is at least one advantage of single moms for us introverts: Polite detachment for a while, and if things work out with the mom you will eventually slide into his life reasonably comfortably. The groundwork is a basic, honest inventory.

What is it about your prior relationships that you have found satisfying? What did they lack? How would you describe your own sexuality? What do you need from a partner, and what do you want? From there, you just need 1. You seem to want a successful long-term emotional correspondence. Keep that in mind. Or, restrict your dating-site profiles in such a way that the only people who find your profile interesting are people like you. The right person has a way of introducing you to yourself. Speaking from direct experience, I would not have been successful in my current relationship without having gone through a very specific relationship that was painful-wonderful and ultimately transformative.

Well, I do also have biology-based physical desires. Tongue-in-cheek, but it actually worked for me. Played WoW because it was fun, eventually gave it up because I was in college and figured I should probably be going out in the world, with a main focus of having dating prospects. Turns out there are a decent amount of women in my age range, and we start with a common interest and a bundle of related interests and the ability to show off my intelligence.

Long-distance is inevitable and is always a problem, but hey, having your SO be 6 hours of driving away actually works out pretty well if you only want infrequent in-person interaction. Too much competition for me. Any obvious female will always have a following of 20 dudes competing for her attention. I tend not to be super hardcore, but we are talking like hours a week with serious progression and an expectation that people will do their homework with regards to their class. Maybe women in those sort of guilds are less interested in a bunch of men fighting over them and being flirty? The way it generally starts is that I need to interact with people fairly regularly for raid-related stuff, and sometimes we hit it off, and start talking about unrelated things.

This eventually leads to phone numbers being exchanged, and things go from there. My current girlfriend and I have been friends and raided together for years before deciding we were into each other. About half of them already have boyfriends, and the other half constantly have every other guy in the guild flirting with them.

I had to chew out an officer for rather explicitly drunk-texting another raider once, but that was the only issue I had in years of being the raid leader and thus the guy who would have to deal with that. All are currently in relationships 3 to other raiders on the team, 3 to people who play the game but are not part of the team.

This team is way more woman-heavy than any of my previous teams, but there were at least 2 women on all of my previous teams. Only thing I can think of is Alliance v Horde? My current guild has a decent gender balance but most of the females are old ladies. As a fellow introvert, I sympathize with your inclinations, but I do think there is a trade-off. And 4 who would settle for chilling at home doing nothing in particular.

And without those things aligned, why would this person care enough about me to do 1? So, YMMV, but I do find that having a meaningful relationship requires stretching out of my introvert comfort zone. But I feel like if I met someone with similar social needs to myself, we could make it work just fine. Genuinely sorry about that. Take the dog to a dog park.

Over time you will get to know the girls who go there. Girls who have dogs are usually pretty cool. Also, what is it about animals you dislike? I dislike things that are loud, unpredictable, and place a lot of requirements and responsibilities on me. Or is it something you might be able to learn to deal with in return for greater rewards? Uh, I guess it does? I promise you this.

Dogs are a massively logistical commitment and mine, as much as I love her, has rewritten my life in many ways, not all of which are good. I am stuck with her for another decade. And people have started mis-interpreting my post. You can spend most your time alone in your room, and when you want to hang, venture into the living room. Two introverts are probably rarely in the living room at the same time.

Haha, no way, not a chance.

The composer.lock is not up to date.

I said strong introvert remember? My home is my shelter from other people. Though it has a high male: A thoughtful post, maybe a modified version of your OP in this thread, will probably get some responses. Being willing to start with a long-distance relationship will grow your pool a lot. This is non partisan. I feel like there is a lot left on the field internet wise as far as organizing goes. Any organizing among individuals has to be done on poorly suited Twitter and Facebook accounts.

There is no central location of political focused content. Maybe a group has a shittily managed Slack at best. Many smaller groups would do well with a web forum designed for autonomous members of a federation. Election reform groups and third parties are a good example. At a very basic level, you need your organizing to generate and effectively spend resources which boil down to time and money. Web forums exacerbate rather than solve those problems.

Simultaneously, web forums provide a space for people to have power both technologically and persuasively. The danger here is that people spend more energy maintaining their status rather than focusing on growing the group — since the latter involves bringing in more people that could threaten their status. I can think of a couple of high profile examples of once influential groups that collapsed into the cult of personality for a single individual.

Well its not a traditional web forum. There are autonomous groups. Also, maintaining status type stuff is already at the limit. Dems vs everyone else, how each existing group is very top down and hierarchical, etc. Also you provide a space for organizing rather than growing, so taking the already existing group of Sanders supporters for instance and providing better tools than fishing around on Twitter.

But do they hire women engineers? Do they have women top executives? Do I hear terrible things from women who work there? Yes, all the time. We have this overwhelming ideology! I know this is a quote, but I really have to push back at this.


  1. A Secret in the Ravine.
  2. Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter.
  3. Home at Last - Margaret Watson - Google Книги?

So many people are just outright lying about what the memo said. He had 2 major points: Google has become an left-wing echo chamber that shuts down debate. Not if they are in an echo chamber where those non-effective methods are the only ones you are allowed to think about. I think the ideologically important thing here is that agreement with diversity as a goal is not sufficient. Google is being sued for gender discrimination.

And it is usually implemented in a clumsy and ineffective manner that puts most of the cost on the rank and file work force, e. Assuming you are correct, that was corporate hitting the employees with a clue-bat, which apparently missed Damore. I got jeered at for saying this before the Damore piece came out, but this is really what they believe, that speech which contradicts their beliefs, or even the presence of someone who they know holds wrong beliefs, constitutes an actionably hostile environment. That said, none of that is about to be addressed in this case.

One interesting thing implied by your quote, and which often seen stated outright elsewhere, is that a diverse staff is the default. That upper management is actively working to limit diversity but if they let up then there would be a sudden surge of women and URMs into these positions. This has interesting implications:. Your best move would be to push as hard as possible for more diversity at each position below your own. These same incentives should logically also apply to each level above you all the way up to the board of directors.

You would expect to ultimately see highly diverse companies with almost entirely white male shareholders. So what am I missing? His model of how other people think. They tend to bias hiring accordingly. They definitely did discuss reasons women are less likely to go into tech in general although they put it to cultural rather than biological reasons ; their position also seems to be, however, that these are not mutually exclusive positions.

In fact, the former may make the latter more likely. If workers are happier in a more homogeneous environment than a diverse one, why are we pushing diversity? I would think that making workers happier is a good thing. The same research they mentioned and maybe they will link it when they post show notes, will post here if they do, otherwise no idea what specific paper they mean is purported to show that workers are happier in more homogeneous environments, but that these environments also produce less effective work outcomes.

Because tech has prestige, money, and unlike the similarly skewed financial sector mostly left-wing values. Is it reasonable to fire a software engineer for doing something you expect software engineers to do? Further, is it reasonable to fire someone for taking explicitly repeated company mantras literally? Thanks for holding us accountable!

Yes and no, respectively. I guess if someone has a bona fide disability that impacts the ability to understand appropriate behavior on the basis of implicit cues, and they let their employer know that they have it, the company has to figure out whether it can make a reasonable accommodation block internal company forums? I think there are actually a lot of us who believe that the left is lying when it claims to value diversity, tolerance, etc.

But we occasionally, with much difficulty try to be more charitable than that and come up with alternate explanations. Which still says interesting things about social pressure to conform if true, of course. You are really going to claim that most people in the red tribe have as a terminal value telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth all the time? Explicitly stated of course, no implicature allowed. All the people that participate in propagating that really believe it is the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

You should be defaulting to the idea that left and right have different definitions of fairness, diversity and equality. It used to own at most hospitals but now it not only owns more hospitals but it has bought up physicians practices too. In particular as reflected by their actions? It serves only as propaganda designed to confuse and misdirect. What value does a lying statement like that have to society? Being forced to ritually express things that no one actually believes to be true, and to suppress things everyone does believe, is certainly common.

Those screaming loudest about how terrible PC is have plenty of their own taboos they are willing to go to the mat to protect. The people from the first group are largely okay with the pressure on the second group and vice versa. There is no large scale anti-PC movement as such. Claiming to be against political correctness by and large just means you have the second set of preferences.

Your flavor of anti-political correctness is numerically extremely unusual. Though Bill Maher would probably come closest. Substantially all the voters that told pollsters that political correctness was one of the biggest problems facing America were channeling Trump, not Dave Rubin whoever that is. Volunteering to be meat for the machine may be objectively stupid irrational but it is still better to live in a society where such people exist than one where they do not. Sorry, but if a general orders a drone pilot to drop a bomb on a hospital, I think the drone pilot deserves to be spat on when he returns home.

If you think the war is illegal and immoral and unjustified, people who joined during wartime are knowingly and intentionally committing illegal, immoral, and unjustified acts of aggression. Basically any sides of any political argument is going to be dominated by unprincipled tribalists. The revealed preferences of the mass of Americans and humans more generally is directly relevant to that disagreement, not the most rarefied, steel-manned version of what some claim to believe.

The fact that the vast majority of any given side of any given political argument are unprincipled tribalists does seem to support your point in this bottom-level thread, and I seem to be wrong. They are inconsistent, because people are inconsistent about everything, and are often okay with forcing that on others. Your statement can be read either way. The first version is the one that is true, the second is the one needed, for the moral conclusion I think you want to draw.

Yes, in proportion to their availability. Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of imperialist, I suppose. I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury. With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate all legislative powers to elected "representatives.

Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side. Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article And that's assuming that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign nation without adult supervision. As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better informed view.

Why would a member of the British masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution? The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to maintain rule making and enforcement control via the government over the masses; such privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the Privateers monopoly thieves will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.

Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He Corbyn is a very dangerous man, so too was Jesus Christ. It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.

Che Guava , says: December 6, at 3: Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively forced to accept mass immigration for many years. Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with existing ethnicity and previous culture.

As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that image, it is a lie. He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of and dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.

By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh. When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. In , when the Greens made this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform irresponsible and dangerous "even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a non-two-party candidate!

Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now except for its true purpose: Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political position. For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class interests at play.

The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war. Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy. What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling elite.

What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and working people self rule? National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.

Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change. The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or detrimental.

You heard that General Motors is idling five plants and laying off 14, workers, right? Part of the retrenchment is a response to a slowdown in new-car sales that has prompted automakers to slim their operations and shed jobs. And earlier bets on smaller cars have had to be unwound as consumers have gravitated toward pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles in response to low gasoline prices.

In addition, automakers have paid a price for the trade battle that Mr. Trump set in motion. Rising interest rates are also generating headwinds. Barra said no single factor had prompted G. But demand for small and midsize cars has plunged. Two-thirds of all new vehicles sold last year were trucks and S. That shift has hit G. Just a few years ago, the factory employed three shifts of workers to churn out Chevy Cruzes.

Now it is down to one. In the plant made about , cars, down from , in More broadly, the years long boom in car and truck sales in North America appears to be ending, said John Hoffecker, vice chairman at AlixPartners, a global consulting firm with a large automotive practice. AlixPartners forecast that domestic auto sales will fall to about 15 million cars and light trucks in , from about 17 million this year.

Watching cable news tonight at the gym, I heard an Ohio Democratic Congressman blast the president over this. He ripped Trump for having made promises to industrial workers in his state in , about how he would bring jobs back. He ripped Trump over the steel tariffs that have driven up costs of production. And he ripped Trump for not taking his job seriously, for caring more about Twitter than coming up with a strategy that might save jobs. I'll give the congressman all of that, especially on Trump being a lazy, golfing-and-tweeting buffoon who doesn't care about his job.

Trump can get away with that when the economy is booming, but now it looks like things might be turning downward.

Source code should not contain TODO comments

From the Washington Post: In Lordstown, workers planned to pray for a miraculous reversal of the company's decision, according to David Green, president of United Auto Workers Local About 40 percent of the local's members voted for Trump, Green said. Now workers want to see the president keep his promises, he said.

Indeed, even before Monday's announcement, Lordstown had been bleeding jobs. But we have to face some facts. People aren't buying what GM is making. Aside from the move away from small cars, an effect of lower gasoline prices, sedan sales have been declining across all manufacturers. This summer, I got a good deal on a Honda Accord, a car I really love, and that received rapturous praise from the automobile press when it came out. Honda struggled to sell the cars. It's not because they're lousy cars. They're actually terrific cars. It's that consumers are losing interest in sedans.

What good does it do GM to manufacture cars that people will not buy? What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back. The Rust Belt made the crucial difference for Trump in Unless the Democrats' nominee is someone who is more or less a space alien, it's going to be hard to win those voters' support when you've improved your Twitter game and your golf score, but those plants are idle. If the demogagic President Donald Trump and his greedy loyalist Republican abettors had their way, the American citizenry would be consigned to a life of Farm -like drudgery.

Orwell himself, indicated that his simplistic foreboding fairtale held "a wider application" about "power-hungry people. Disillusioned Americans, who weren't so much "alert" as they were desperate, clearly were swindled by Trump's disingenous populous revolution of sorts. Now, in the flotsam wake of the midterm election's Democratic blue wave -- demonstrating a new found citizen alertness that will flood the House in January -- the mistake of ever allowing a Trump Presidency, is coming into sharp, unsettling focus.

Greed and abuse of power produce essentially the same result whatever the misanthropic ideology — Communism or Fascism or some other hybrid demagogic "ism" to which Trump and his loyalists aspire. C's plutocratic pigs had their druthers, Americans would be so dumbed down by the con-in-chief's exhaustive lies and grating vitriol, endorsed by congressional majority party Republicans, that we would have about as much say in our Republic's affairs as Animal Farm 's befuddled barnyard animals had on the farm under the pigs. Trump is akin to Farm 's ruthless ruling pig, Napoleon, a Berkshire boar who, Orwell writes, has a knack for "getting his own way.

Napoleon counted on his propagandist pig, Squealer, who "could turn black into white" to brainwash the farm animals with lies about their tyrannical leader's supposed benevolence. Even Clover the mare, who notices the changes the pigs sneakily make to Animalism's Commandments, eventually is lulled into a sense of complacency, convincing herself that she must have "remembered it wrong.

As the Farm animals work harder for less, the beloved, but dim-witted carthorse Boxer declares, "I will work harder" and routinely motivates himself by extolling the pigs' most controlling lie of all: To advance his doubtless premeditated assault on truth and civility from the start of , President Trump has employed his own tag team versions of Squealer — in imaginative mouthpieces Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Sanders, White House press secretary, seems eternally lost in an alternate reality where if President Trump "says it, it must be true" — just as Farm's animals were programmed to parrot of Napoleon, no matter how absurd the lie. And we Americans, like Farm 's flock of mindless sheep taught by Squealer to obediently bleat "Four legs good, two legs better ," are supposed to believe it all. Just as Farm 's pigs reason early on that they need all of the farm's "milk and apples" to lead the rest of the animals, Trump and his complicit Republican chums insisted at the outset that billionaires' tax breaks are the key to economic revival for all.

Never mind that Reaganomics trickled down — and out, decades ago. Never mind that corporate profits are soaring, while workers' wages have stagnated. And that now, in order to pay for corporate big wigs' tax cuts, Republicans contrive to carve up the people's Medicare and Medicaid, while sinisterly eyeing social security benefits. A Life In Letters , At the first sign of feebleness, Boxer, the farm's hardest worker -- instrumental in the farm's success from which the pigs alone capitalized -- is hauled off to the slaughterhouse. Despite the animals' increasingly desperate circumstances on the farm, Squealer's barrage of untruths ultimately convince the lowly, overworked animals that "things were getting better.

Think of Trump's grandiose claims of new plant openings and soaring jobs numbers. When Fox News' asked him this past weekend how he would grade his job as President so far, Trump offered, "A plus. And look no further than Trump's scripted, dictator-esque, brainwashing rallies, where gullible Reality TV "fans" pathetically worship a snake oil salesman, cheering on command and smiling idiotic smiles.

In Farm' s last pages, the pigs have rewritten Animalism's "Seven Commandments" to suit them, embracing the ways of the animals' sworn enemy humans. Jones' farm house, are dressed in his clothes and are walking upright on their two hind legs. By then, the incoherent sheep under the absolute sway of Napoleon's propagandist pig Squealer, no longer are sounding off on command: Animal Farm leaves us with the animals peering through the farm house dining room window as the pigs inside schmooze and toast mugs of beer with neighboring farmer, Mr.

Pilkington and his associates. The pigs and humans end up squabbling over a card game in which Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington each play an ace of spades. In the novella's last line, the baffled animals at the window look from face to face, from the humans to the pigs, but: Anymore, whether it's in the company of dictators Trump keeps or among the multi-millionaires and billionaires that our purported Capitol Hill representatives mingle with at home and abroad, it's becoming increasingly harder to tell "which is which.

All that said, the subject's personality cannot help shine through anyway. One understands Berlusconi's original appeal: First as a developer and salesman in the booming s Italian property market. Then by founding Italy's first private television stations, circumventing the state ban on private national channels Ride of the Valkyries. Berlusconi's success as a businessman reflects the materialism and superficiality characteristic of the postwar democratic West, his power derives from the masses' bottomless desire for things and for spectacle.

In the s and s, Berlusconi in effect converted his media appeal and economic clout into political capital. My Way does give a sense of the man's charm, brashness, and sordid sense of humor. Nonetheless, one can't help laughing at his jokes and enjoying his company. We see him give a pep talk to his football players. Berlusconi tells a black player that he would like to meet his wife, because she is so beautiful, adding that he needn't worry as he's already "too old.

This is funny, but Berlusconi, who was almost eighty during the interviews, does look like an awful case of plastic surgery. Berlusconi gives us a tour of his gorgeous villa at Arcore 20 kilometers from Milan , showing his collection of Renaissance paintings, classical Greco-Roman sculpture some given to him by Muamar Gaddafi from Libya , and a whole room of paintings of. Among these we are shown a heroic painting of Mussolini, with Berlusconi weakly protesting that this shouldn't be filmed, lest they give the wrong impression. Berlusconi is a man who gets what he wants.

Call it a weakness for appetite or a strength of will. After having two children with his first wife who did not age gracefully , he moved in with and eventually married Veronica Lario. Berlusconi's girlfriend since is 50 years his junior and, for her service, will presumably receive an even bigger payout. Let no one say that THOT-ery does not pay! Berlusconi's penchant for girls was part of his undoing in another respect, namely in his notorious "Bunga Bunga" parties with nubile young women, culminating in the trial alleging that he had had sex with an underage Moroccan prostitute nicknamed "Ruby Rubacuore" Ruby Heartstealer.

In the interviews, Berlusconi explains that the term "Bunga Bunga" comes from a sex joke involving an African tribe. My Way , while an hour and thirty-eight minutes long, does not tell you all that much about Berlusconi's politics. Besides his changing of Italian laws so as to escape prosecution for various misdeeds, the little that is said largely speaks in his favor.

Bush, and Russian President Vladimir Putin really hit it off. Berlusconi goes so far as to claim that his summit "ended the Cold War," which is the usual hyperbolic salesman-speak, much like Trump's perennial "tremendous. On the substance, one can only welcome attempts to bring peace and good relations among Europe, America, and Russia, which have so often been needlessly in conflict. In both cases he argues, as a good realist, that you need a strong leader, in effect a dictator, to maintain order in these multiethnic countries.

To bring "democracy" would mean only chaos. Berlusconi notes that Iraq is made up of three antagonistic ethno-religious groups and that Libya is made up of some tribes, who had regularly declared Gaddafi "King of Kings. The fall of Gaddafi's dictatorship also led the spread of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb AQIM , which captured Timbuktu in , destroying some of that city's ancient shrines and mausoleums, one of the few examples of indigenous Sub-Saharan African architectural heritage.

Berlusconi expresses the basic truth: There can be no solidarity without identity. Given this fact, the multiculturalists and immigrationists are digging the grave of liberal democracy, and in their ignorance and delusion, are preparing the way for new regimes. Let us hope that these will be indeed more coherent and honest forms of government. I do not know if Berlusconi actually privately opposed the Iraq invasion in In any event, once Bush got on his way, Italy did send troops there.

On Libya, Berlusconi was outmaneuvered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whom Friedman accurately describes as fomenting a war to boost his flagging approval ratings and distract from his lackluster economic performance. We then move to the eurozone crisis in In this instance, the Great European Ponzi Scheme of malinvestment in southern European property and debt, collapsed, threatening the whole continent's banking sector. Friedman does not give the watcher any good idea of why all this was occurring. He does explicitly show, based primarily on U. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's ills.

Berlusconi was toppled and Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and Goldman Sachs banker, was parachuted in, on the recommendation of George Soros , no less. I for one don't think that rule by a small, rootless, international clique tends to be very stable. Monti proved monstrously unpopular and was kicked out of office within two years. The Italians have since responded to EU diktats by electing anti-Brussels populists of various stripes. Friedman interviewed a number of people in making his documentary.

These include a probably rightly indignant Italian prosecutor, a colorless Italian journalist, a former Spanish prime minister, a former EU president, and even Putin himself. Not a whole lot of light comes out of all of this. Strikingly, Berlusconi emerges as if anything the most likable character among the whole motley crew of people interviewed, at that is saying something.

Despite his more-or-less hostile narration, the interviewer Friedman is shown constantly being friendly and making ingratiating smiles with Berlusconi, only to dump him at the end of the film, saying "and I never saw him again" with a credit role showcasing Berlusconi and his associates' various convictions. On Berlusconi the talented and opportunist politician, I can add the following which was not mentioned in the documentary. He knew how to make the difficult deals to form Italy's notoriously-unstable coalition governments, starting in , with a short-lived alliance with the regionalist Lega Nord and post-fascist National Alliance who hated each other, essentially over the Southern Question.

He knew how to compaign for what the people wanted. His famous "Contract with the Italians" promised less and simpler taxes, infrastructure, more jobs, more pensions, more police, and less politicians. Of course, he rarely delivered. In , constitutional reforms proposed by Berlusconi would have strengthened the prime minister and devolved more powers to Italy's regions, but this was rejected by referendum. The Italian journalist in the documentary points out that Berlusconi never did the "reforms" necessary to save the economy, as he did not want to upset his electorate or his coalition partners.

In short, for all the kvetching, Berlusconi was too much of a democrat to get much done. Berlusconi was however decidedly anti-leftist. When facing Romano Prodi's left-wing coalition "the Union" in the mids, Berlusconi nicknamed it "the Soviet Union. He was born in in what was then the Kingdom of Italy, well into the second decade of Fascist government.

At a holocaust remembrance ceremony in , Berlusconi argued that Mussolini's Fascist government did many good things , all the while lamenting the alliance with the Third Reich and participation in the holocaust specifically, the deportation of Jews, although in fact the survival rate for Italian Jews was among the highest in Europe and these deportations only began after Germany had created their own puppet government in northern Italy, nominally led by Mussolini. As a matter of fact, many figures as diverse as Ezra Pound, Charles de Gaulle, and Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi admired Italian Fascism's political stability and ability to promote communitarian values stressing individual self-sacrifice for the common good.

All this may not be understood today however. In the end, Berlusconi achieved little politically. He maintained good relations with Russia, America, Israel, and Libya, the latter being of particular value in containing the ever-rising tied of African illegal immigration. He had excellent instincts in general. But, ultimately, he was merely an end in himself, masculinity without purpose. With the declining influence of the mainstream media and the ability of outsiders to appeal directly to the masses through social media, we will no doubt see the rise of many more populists movements of both left and right.

Happily, in Italy itself, Berlusconian populism has given way to that of Matteo Salvini , who while something an opportunist himself like all electoral politicians, I am tempted to add , is saying and doing many of the right things on immigration and demography. The opportunity here is in overthrowing an emotionally stunted and ideologically incoherent establishment, which is destroying Western civilization based on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of human nature. The risk is that we fall into mere demotism, with governments mindlessly following the fluctuations of the debased desires and prejudices of public opinion, which would certainly not be optimal either.

From this, there will be more electoral demand for economically unsustainable left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging right-wing policies. Neither is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's hills for coal and gas or Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests. But this is what democracy means! This is the ineluctable product of the hegemonic "anti-fascism" and rejection of all authority since ! To those who are upset with the careers of Berlusconi, Trump, and Bolsonaro, I am tempted to quote Gladiator: Is this not why you are here!?

Western men and women can no longer understand the ancient notion of justice: Obviously, there can be no hierarchy or justice among "equals," for whom anyone's claim to superiority is necessarily presumptuous arrogance. Westerners today are not ready to hear or understand these truths.

In the natural course of events, things must necessarily get worse before human beings realize that they are doing or thinking something wrong, and correct course. Things certainly are not bad enough yet. We are far too comfy. Anon [] Disclaimer , says: November 20, at 5: In the specific, verbally and culturally assaulting Berlusconi during the time of his being influential and charismatic was the national and European sport for the "if Trump wins I leave the USA, no longer feeling safe" types -- from Organized Press and TV "journalists" and "film-makers" to "poets", "singers', "thinkers", and, well, every sort of "influencer".

He was not superficial and initially got elected with programs and projects ahead of the time for Italy, meeting the opposition on top of the Left, as said of his allies, who were aggrieved by his overwhelming popularity. The closest comparison is with Trump but he was no Trump either. Among other things, he was always pushing to abridge the gap between Italy and those few countries ahead of it very few, but stably ahead -- thus drawing upon himself the ire of those countries' establishment.

Interest rates that had to be paid to creditors and people who's buy state debt soared above any reasonable height, forcing the government's lapse. Suddenly The Markets and the International Press went back to finding Italy's finances and financial prospects healthy, debt rates went back to their normal. In , after some years an independent goverment is elected again Salvini-Di Maio , and again you have the EU's economy chiefs, the Press that Matters, the Markets, the USA rating agencies, all worried about Italy's financial conditions.

And again this makes debt rates on issued state bonds soar. The bond-ratings agencies are nothing but a tool of the globalist debt-vultures on Wall Street. The whole ratings system is a total scam. I heard a slightly different version of the story. In any case, it's a real delight having Guillaume Durocher here at Unz. I had never heard of him before, but I have so far enjoyed all of his articles.

It's always good to get a European droite nouvelle perspective on politics. Let's be absolutely clear about this. Corbyn is no populist. He has little empathy for the white working class and is in favour of large 3rd World immigration. In fact, Durocher's case for Left Wing Populism does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. To paraphrase the dramatist, the mainstream and far left want to dissolve the people and elect a new one.

More and more immigration, they believe, will result in more and more people reliant on welfare. These people, when enfranchised, will vote for the parties of welfare — the Left. The Left will be in power forever, so they believe. Given their vested interest, they are inherently anti-Populist.

The population of the US and Brazil years ago was a fraction of what it is now. In the US population was about 80 million. Now it is million, a 4-fold increase. Environmental degradation is logical outcome of large and sudden increase in population, especially in small areas. It is even more marked in countries like China and North Korea where there is no democracy at all. It has little to do with "demotism" or "right-wing policies. Yet in Western Europe and North America, in the last 60 years, air, land and water pollution has been drastically reduced.

In the early s, thousands died of respiratory diseases due to urban smog — the London Pea Souper being the most notorious. These are now just a memory. By contrast, countries like India and China have trouble even supplying the population with clean water. Many millions of Chinese have tap water with toxic levels of heavy metals and other pollutants. The resultant deaths also run into the millions. Mr Durocher seems to have a talent for deducing the wrong inference. Paolo Sorrentino's Il Divo about Italian PM Giulio Andreotti who was actually convicted of ordering the murder of a journalist although that was by the same prosecutors' office that convicted Amanda Knox.

His friend supposedly begged, "The State must give an answer to the Mafia, and you are one of the top authorities in it! The deep Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union favoured by Italy was opposed by Britain's Margaret Thatcher, who wanted a system of competition between currencies. Germany had doubts about committing to the project without requiring economic reforms from Italy, which was seen as having various imbalances.

As President of the European Council, Andreotti co-opted Germany by making admittance to the single market automatic once the criteria had been met, and committing to a rigorous overhaul of Italian public finances. Critics later questioned Andreotti's understanding of the obligation, or whether he had ever intended to fulfill it.

Open Thread | Slate Star Codex

Italians are taking the French banks that made bad loans to it, and Germany that backs those loans to prop up the EU single market Mutualisation , for yet another ride. Macron was elected as the banks' mutualisation man to making French toxic loans something Germany will stand behind.

Italy is the third largest economy in Europe and too big to fail and they know it. Technocrat Mario Monti was the bankers' man to reduce Italy's live now pay never lifestyle , but Italy knew it had a much stronger hand to play and so they elected a populist. The Germans are going to be squeezed till the pips squeak. The controversial Washington think-tanker denied to me in August that he'd directly advised the administration. To the contrary, he'd actually endorsed and counseled Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's bitter primary rival, in the late stretches of the trench warfare primary something, like most who have come over to Trump after the primary, he has sought to minimize.

But in style and substance, there was no greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview. Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. David Reaboi, an alumnus of Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and now with the administration-friendly Security Studies Group, fleshed the statement out Wednesday morning in an illuminating radio interview.

Reaboi has commented to me in this publication before; there should be no reason to doubt his sincerity. But for Reaboi, the joint action of last week's indictments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia coupled with U. Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: Leading to the French 7 year war largely funded by the United States few recall America refusing them costing another 2 Decades and another 5 Presidents inheriting this French Fiasco Imperialism. All Presidents must weigh and decide past, current and future Alliances whether it be President Carter and Reagan freezing American Iranian Assets and later returns by President Obama in the Billions while Iran used the money to fund more Middle Eastern Chaos and terror elsewhere.

These controversies, policies, and outcomes are always up for debate, spin, and accusations, and often depends on America being force to act and react Deeds of Deception caused by other Nations Leaders especially, Absolute Monarchs, Communist, Socialist, Fascist Dictators, and Theocratic Ayatollahs. Saudi Arabia hosts US military bases.

Saudi Arabia is a major oil producer that aligns its activities with US oil interests. Saudi Arabia is a big investor in the US. Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the Middle East. It's never OK, and God will judge. However, the US has massive vital interests at stake. Trump administration is complicit in Khashoggi murder. The US intelligence had intercepted calls between Riyadh, Washington and Istanbul about Khashoggi a few days before the killing. It was aware of MbS plans to abduct or kill the Journalist.


  • A Thundering Wind.
  • Die weiblichen Figuren in Beziehung zu Danton und seinem Todesurteil in Georg Büchners Dantons Tod (German Edition).
  • Sea of Serpents (The Sasha Strange Chronicles Book 2).
  • Hockey Line Changes - WHEN & HOW to teach them to young players;
  • Deutschland in Anführungszeichen: Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland das vierte Reich (German Edition)?
  • Introduction to Old English.
  • Chinas America: The Chinese View the United States, 1900-2000 (SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture).
  • Instead of alerting Khashoggi, the American government let him walk in the Saudi Consulate and be butchered there. I've never quite heard Hamas and Hezbollah described as 'organized social conservatism' before. Donald Trump ran for president as a foreign policy Buchananite in all but name.

    Thoughhe made pro forma genuflections before the altars of primacy and American military supremacy, Trump repeatedly bemoaned America's disastrous interventions in the Greater Middle East. The South Carolina Republican presidential debate in February seemed like a watershed moment: Trump attacked George W. Bush's war leadership and proclaimed the Iraq war a disaster, a bold stance in a Republican Party that still refused to acknowledge reality more than a decade after the invasion.

    Despite being booed by some in the audience, Trump won the state easily and drove "Low Energy" Jeb Bush out of the race. Candidate Trump offered a radical break with the U. He rightly declared the Libyan intervention to be another fiasco, and an illegal one at that. Foreign policy realists and restrainers were understandably receptive to a Trump presidency, warts and all. Much of Trump's rhetoric revolved around the undeniable fact that our allies are prospering under an American security umbrella they do not pay enough to support.

    He famously said that the United States should "take Iraq's oil" as payback for the American blood and treasure invested there. Trump seemed to sum up his view of America in the world when he told The Washington Post in March Two years later, it is clear that "America First" was negotiable. TODO comments are left in the code when a feature or a bug isn't completely developed or fixed.

    You should complete the implementation and remove the comment. The lock file is not up to date with the latest changes in composer. You may be getting outdated dependencies. Run update to update them. Thu, 28 Jan The version field is present, it is recommended to leave it out if the package is published on Packagist. No suggestion Fixed Ignored Last edited Tue, 21 Mar Last edited Wed, 10 Dec Last edited Mon, 27 Oct Last edited Mon, 10 Mar Last edited Sun, 24 Jan Last edited Tue, 14 Jan