fukhueson

Me thinks you didn't read the whole thing

Is that what I was suggesting? Or were you just suggesting that based on your anecdotal experience in the military you can confirm that Blinken and Miller don't know what they're doing? Or, even better, are you basing this on a book about Vietnam? That you can succinctly reduce down the reason against everything cited in the article as "Bibi hates brown people" tells me your analysis is one dimensional (perfect for your intended audience). For one second, do you think that private discussions between interlocuters might not show from the outside? That foreign affairs, which is part of the council on foreign relations, might have some insight into how a "moonshot" like this might work out? And discussing the potential motivations of the involved countries for how these interwoven goals could be achieved?

No, Bibi hates brown people, and shit like this is for suckers. Talk about lobbing easy criticism...

Go away.

I'll email the amazon link for the book to Blinken and Miller.

Edit: if anyone didn't figure it out, I'm rejecting the baseless idea put forth that they know better than the professionals. Next we'll see mozz giving state department briefings instead of Miller, because they clearly know better than those fools.

leans back in chair, twirling moustache, sipping cognac

Why sweet lemming, they're the author of the book that's going to open Blinken's and Miller's eyes to the truth!

No totally, that's why Blinken and Miller should take notes from Lemmy. And they should probably read that book too. I'm sure they'll change course because clearly we know they don't know what they're doing. It's only one way.

Yea, we know so much better than them.

Blinken and Miller ought to hang out on Lemmy more.

Agree. While I had no problems with any of the potential VP picks, I hope she made the correct choice.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-walz-and-not-shapiro-for-vice-president/

In two respects, however, Harris’ choice could have negative consequences. First: During her years in the Senate and her failed quest for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she adopted a number of progressive positions—endorsing the Green New Deal, opposing fracking, supporting Medicare for All (including for undocumented immigrants), and comparing ICE to the KKK—that she is now repudiating. Choosing a running mate seen as strongly progressive could make it more difficult to separate herself credibly from her past record.

Second: In the context of the Electoral College, Harris’ choice could backfire. While Walz’s Minnesota is safely Democratic, Shapiro presides over the most important swing state in the 2024 election. Although many pundits see Walz as especially appealing to rural and working-class voters, the evidence suggests otherwise. Compared to Biden’s 2020 performance in Minnesota, Walz received the same share of the vote overall (52%), and he did no better than Biden among rural and small-town voters, working-class voters, and Republican identifiers while running four points behind Biden among Independents.

By contrast, Shapiro far exceeded Biden’s 2020 baseline statewide, racking up 57% of the vote compared to Biden’s 50%. And he outpaced Biden in virtually every electoral group, exceeding the president’s share by seven points among rural and small-town voters, seven points among non-college voters, nine points among Republicans and voters leaning Republican, and five points among Independents.

Hmm... are you talking about Zack Beauchamp? Or someone else with publications that represent what you're saying?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/6/20754828/el-paso-shooting-white-supremacy-rise

https://www.vox.com/politics/357963/republicans-white-identity-politics-newsletter

https://www.vox.com/politics/356824/liberalism-way-of-life-lefebvre

https://www.vox.com/politics/361136/far-right-authoritarianism-germany-reactionary-spirit

But whatever, facts don't matter here, considering how many comments want to trash this article (without reading past the title :) )

Well, he didn't just crawl out of a hole, he has a record. The article is making the claim that he has the potential to bring together different elements of the democratic party, which ultimately is the party of everyone else that isn't voting Trump. This is a big tent with a lot of perspectives, and while democrats are largely united against Trump, that doesn't inherently mean they're just as united behind the candidate (as we just saw), and those kind of things are ripe for Republicans to pick at and promote infighting.

Good talk.

Edit: no follow ups.... guess they didn't read the article past the headline? :)

Edit 2: they clearly didn't lol