Harvard is a $50 Billion endowment fund that happens to run a school. So Harvard divesting from Israel affiliated investments is potentially significant.
During his first campaign, most people with common sense simply dismissed Trump. "Who in his right mind would vote for him?" they thought. Boy! were they in for a surprise.
Now this is his second campaign. Trump is still the same Trump as the first time but on steroid this time. He tried to stage a coup, and he's now sitting in a courtroom trying to defend his ass in a really shameful scandal.
And most people with common sense, again, dismiss Trump. Because really, this time around, who in his right mind - including the most staunch ultra-conservative bible thumping republican - would vote this guy in again?
Well, brace yourself because many, many people will inexplicably say "Watch me. Hold my beer..." on election day. It will truly boggle your mind that not only anyone voted for him at all, but in fact a sizeable portion of America has.
Why wouldn't they trust him? It's a bit like that Maya Angelou quote: when people show you who they are believe them first time.
Thing is his supporters believe him because it's what they want. They trust him. Staunch critics believe him because it's what they fear, they trust he'll do terrible things. Those that don't yet believe him are naive or deluded thinking it's just as bad to vote for Biden. I don't understand these people.
They shouldn't trust him because he is a liar and a manipulator, and a charming, effective one, like all sociopaths.
He literally goes out there and talks to the crowd thinking they are idiots, because he can just make them think whatever he wants.
And they are. That's why I'm wondering why they don't learn. There must be something inside them that makes them want to be betrayed. Kind of like a relationship where you know you will get hurt but you do it anyway because you think that's what you deserve. Maybe? I really don't understand it.
America is a very individualist country to my eyes. People see taxes as paying for someone else's healthcare or homeless shelter rather than paying for the things that everyone needs. There are only 2 sides in the election. Most people can't ever see themselves switching sides, it's a big change in thinking for a lot of topics. Hell the vote is usually decided by the turnout rather than people being convinced to switch sides. Trumps followers want him to hurt who they perceive as "their enemy", i.e. Democrats (and non whites ssshhhh). And in fairness he does and they are happy that he does. They don't envisage themselves ever in the group that he is attacking so whatever he's gonna do to them is fine. They do sometimes end up in that group though:
I know people who are strongly against wind renewables. Why? Uhh... because they kill birds. And whales! And they uhh, don't break down, or something. So they're not perfect, and we should buy more oil.
It's because a lot of money is spent on programming the gullible to help maintain the status quo and keep some rich people get extra super rich.
I's probably because they're adhering to their in-group's beliefs. The in-group (conservatives) doesn't like renewables, so they don't. When pressed for why, they don't really have a good answer, so they'll desperately grasp for anything that's remotely plausible.
We're all susceptible to this, and it probably had advantages for ancient humans.
For Trump specifically I think it's personal in this case, I remember a planned one from Scotland that he claimed would ruin the view from one of his clubs there, so might be as revenge against the concept for that
Agree, but you still might be surprised. Back in high school I was paid minimum wage to catch bugs with a butterfly net for a few hours a day, for a team of biologists studying insect behavior. It was funded by the military, but the research was incredibly basic and far off from being directly usable in a military application.
Relatives of the doctors were told by the State Department that rescue efforts were underway, including through coordination with the United Nations and the Israel Defense Forces. Yet on Monday, the Israeli military fired on a United Nations vehicle that was traveling to the European Hospital in Khan Younis, near Rafah, killing a U.N. employee and injuring another.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust IDF to rescue anyone. IDF is only capable of mass murder. They are literally bombing their own civilian hostages because it's acceptable loss. They must have gotten US playbook, not only weapons with all that military aid.
Nationalism is almost always bad, why should Israeli Nationalism be any different?
Ask yourself: if it was any other country or ethnicity, would it be "good" nationalism? Would an American or Russian Nationalist worry you? How about a Rwandan or Serbian nationalist?
Chances are the answer is "yes" (unless you're a fascist), so why does Israeli nationalism get a free pass?
Zionism has always been highly controversial. It is a political movement but it's proponents try and paint it as a central and indelible part of Jewish identity - trying to make it seem as if to attack zionism is to attack Judaism. This is of course utter bullshit.
It's a common tactic of the zionist movement to try and equate anti-zionism with being anti-semetic. But zionism is a nationalist political ideology, not an ethnic identity.
It is not anti-semetic to attack zionism, just as it is not unamerican to attack the Republican Party.
Became? Always was… even at the end of WW2. Albert Einstein, who was Ashkenazi Jewish himself, even opposed it. Taking away a native populace’s land and giving it over to outsiders has always been, and always will be, controversial.
Stealing people's land from underneath them and giving it to another people (especially based on religion or ethnicity) is both a crime against humanity and a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (created 6 months after establishing the state of Israel), but the west just accepted Zionism because the majority of jews were white Europeans, the colonialists who dominated the league of nations didn't consider brown people to be people, and none of them wanted to allocate any of their own land due to their own antisemitism.
Zionism has always been a crime. We were just lied to and told things were "complicated" by the same colonialist oligarchs who call the Islamic extremism their own historic crimes created and amplified "complicated".
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there's a reason why European Jews were in such ample supply. It's hard to negatively judge early Jewish Zionism when many of the Jews in question were liberated from genocide and given their ancestral home back. The actions of the right wing government in Israel don't speak towards the large number of Israelis that oppose the actions of the government or their particular view of Zionism. The term Zionism has been co-opted by various groups to the point where it no longer carries meaning but instead becomes caricature for a certain type of villain.
Is it bad that my first thought goes to "have you tried a federal database that keeps track of guns, gun owners, and gun ownership applicants?" And yet I know this new idiocy is far more likely to happen than the much more reasonable yet somehow illegal federal gun registry.
Last August, CEO Brian Cornell told reporters that Target learned from the backlash and said the company would be more thoughtful about merchandise decisions for heritage months that celebrate the achievements of marginalized groups.
By thoughtful they mean not celebrating the achievements of marginalized groups.
Interesting Global News
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.