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.
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.
For the record, while Chamberlain was pursuing appeasement, he was also very rapidly building up his nations warfighting capability. This tends to get glossed-over in secondary school history studies.
No, this plays into Trump's campaign messaging. He himself is running on being the "drain the swamp" guy that will be unpredictable and do things differently from other presidents. Putin is just agreeing with that messaging in a roundabout way.
Ooh, another solid unpopular opinion post. I think this sub is actually starting to get somewhere.
This probably wouldn't actually fully address the problem, but it would likely help. Personally I think they should just be paid better, so they get some reasonable compensation for basically being treated as a lower caste.
Care to share any of this? Sounds to me like fake meme-ey stuff. Can even post it in the local science community if you want, I'm sure we'd be interested over there.
Depends entirely on the design and structure of your forge. Heat can be added in unlimited quantities, and so long as it cannot escape through any openings or through anything weakly insulating, it will simply accumulate ... and accumulate ... and accumulate, as you add more and more joules. The temp will get hotter ... and hotter ... and hotter. What your source of heat is, is irrelevant. This is how the interior of your car gets hotter than the surroundings on a sunny day, despite the source being the same, yes? Containment of the slowly-accumulating heat.
It's like weight. It doesn't matter how heavy a hippo is, if we keep adding hippo ... after hippo ... after hippo to a set of scales, we can eventually reach whatever weight, yes? Accumulation, not individual hippo weight, is what matters. Heat in a forge is no different, assuming your forge contains all the heat produced properly.
And they didn't, they collapsed starting higher up. Check an unedited video.
An idea needs more than a bunch of content made for it to be genuinely fleshed out. It has to try to address counter-arguments. Like, for instance, how it doesn't matter what fuel you use to generate heat in an enclosed space. The temperature an oven reaches is not dependent on what fuel you use to heat it, it's dependent on how well the space insulates and retains heat.
You can melt steel with a wood fire, in an appropriate oven.
Hate, as an emotion, is usually a feature of the extremes. Moderates are about compromise, even with things you hate. This is what you hate about them. They do not hate you though, they want to compromise with you.
Your hate is one-way, it is not returned.
edit: Wow, really unpopular. I'm serious though, moderates don't hate you. They just don't want to give you everything. They want to give all their constituent factions some things. Remember, compromise is a state where no party is perfectly happy, just, everyone gets something.
Oh, they are more than welcome to take credit for Ukraine funding. No worries there. I'm sure their voters will looooove that. Israel, yep, they can have that one too. Taiwan, sure, why not? Aid for the Gazans? Yep, sure. Totally fine.
I have not seen this argument you claim. If a liberal wants to own a gun, they can own a gun. Genuine leftists, particularly of the seize-the-means-of-production sort, are also not exactly unfamiliar with violence.
Perhaps you are hanging out with ... trolls?
Or perhaps actually calling for violence, which would get your comments removed, on here at least?
Ah, interesting. Values handed down through cultures and families are a thing though, given Nazi shooting is a behavior and set of values, that was how I interpreted it.
Incidentally, your font size does not exactly have the impact you might think, we're not all a bunch of teens here.
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?