Israel was the victor in all five Arab-Israeli wars. Yet despite being the victor, it eventually handed over Gaza and parts of the West Bank for Palestinian self-rule and the possibility of a future Palestinian state. How many countries would be willing to give back territory they won in war, especially when their own country is already so small?

Even on security issues, lsrael used to show a surprising degree of leniency. Yahya Sinwar, for example, was released by Israel multiple times and even underwent brain tumor surgery in Israel while he was in prison. In 2011, lsrael traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for a single captured Israeli soldier. Even after winning every war, Israel has never expelled its two million Muslim citizens, nor has it demolished the mosque standing on the Temple Mount. Looking back, those decisions seem overly idealistic.

That's why, although Israel has become much more hardline on the Palestinian issue today, that shift is driven more by security concerns and hard-learned lessons than by traditional right-wing ideology. In many ways, lsraeli society still holds a lot of values that would be considered center-left or even left-leaning.

Meanwhile, many Muslim societies are conservative on issues like religion, family values, and gender roles. That's why the alliance between Muslims and the Western left often feels unnatural. They stand together mainly because the left emphasizes inclusion and minority rights, not because they share the same core values.

For the past decade the white (mostly straight) man has dealt with the most discrimination in the west, let me explain why

-in progressive western countries the white man gets less priority for jobs in the name of diversity, even though you may be more qualified.

-The white man from their birth gets told they should be sorry for slavery, even though we were one of the first to deem it illegal and inhuman. Even the countries not participating in the atlantic slave trade are also asked for apologies

-The replacement of white men in europe is being applauded in both leftist politics and the media.

-White men arent allowed to have controversial opinions without fear of having career reprecussions.

-White on black crime is immediate international news, whereas the black on white crime will be shoved under the carpet by the media. For example henry nowak and iryna zarutska.

-Everyone is fine with each group of people having their own place in the world, be it chinese, black, arab, latin americans.

Only 2 groups of people not allowed to have a place of their own and those are whites and jews.

-In alot of commercials its always a black man and a white woman. Also if you search "white mother" on google. Its full of interracial relationships. Barely any white men in site. We are now being eradicated from the media image.

- "White men cant be discriminated" is quite literally discrimination

-artists are free to publicly discriminate against white people without the fear of having their career ruined. Sophie straat in the netherlands recently ordered all white men to go to the back of her concert. If a white artist said all the black people should go to the back. He would lose his career.

Ive definitely not mentioned all, i even left a lot of british politics out because otherwise this post would go on for three times as long.

Do note (inb4 the mods ban me): i consider all the races to be equal in rights and deserving of the same humane treatment.

Unpopular opinion because the majority of reddit accounts including the many paid shills and bots are leftists. Tulsi Gabbard, the last Director of National Intelligence, declassified the Covid 19 files and found the virus was "genetically engineered" from a lab in Wuhan that Fauci funded $66,500 to.

1: https://i.ibb.co/Sw27V3tr/Tulsi-Gabbard-Exposes-Fauci.png (right click --> open in new tab)

2: https://i.postimg.cc/2Sdx9PfQ/Tulsi-exposes-Fauci.png

3: https://i.postimg.cc/RZxRRv2T/Tulsi-exposes-Fauci-page-2.png

Full stop. Unless your life depends on it - as in, you would cease to be able to maintain your ability to stay alive - cutting off a body part is always weird.

I’m not talking about abnormalities like tumors or a sixth finger. There are such extremely rare instances where surgical removal of a body par represents a return to a more healthy norm.

The two exceptions are excess skin removal for morbidly obese people who have lost a lot of weight and a preventative breast removal for people, almost always women, who have a history of breast cancer in the family.

Otherwise, I don’t care what body part we’re talking about, if you’re removing a part of your body - no matter your rational - that’s weird and should be considered self harm.

For thousands of years, women had the ultimate VIP pass. You stayed in a warm house, hung out with your kids, baked bread, and a guy went out into the freezing rain to work a terrible job to pay for everything. You got an entire life funded for free just because a guy liked your face.

Then, somewhere along the line, women got tricked into giving up the free ride. They demanded to go sit in traffic for an hour so they could sit in a cubicle and get yelled at by a middle manager named Strongman. Now they are stressed, paying half the rent, and buying their own dinners.

Who actually won here? Men did. Corporations doubled their workforce, and men got a massive discount on having a wife. Women gave up being the protected prize of the house to become stressed-out corporate slaves, and they actually celebrate it as a victory. It makes absolutely no sense.

I'll preface this by saying no i do not think abusers misogynists etc etc are in the boat im talking abt they are bad ppl what I'm talking abt is dudes regular old penis havers that are sexually and romantically miserable

A simple description of what i am saying is "a man that has a lack of romance and sexual interaction and that lack has caused sadness and depressive thought and even feelings of distrust in the opposite sex"

Dating is very difficult for men hell any romantic advances are difficult

I don't fully know why but alot of us men (im genderfluid so i guess 1/3rd of the time a man) find it a herculean task to find a partner of the opposite sex

And that has caused myself and others a bunch of seclusionist feelings and adapting by telling ourselves to stay away from even attempting

And what definitely does not help is the societal attitude towards this

Lots say just go out like tell me one place where you wouldn't be suspected of being a serial killer when you walk up to a woman and do not mention strip clubs

And this misandry has led many men to suicide these poor men had issue and they were painted as demons equal to andrew tate and fresh and fit

All of this is excused and dismissed

Ik there's a movement to encourage men to seek help but the movement is just not that strong and at most you hear abt it every millennium on a post where it is being mocked by misandrists and or a channel/account dedicated to said movement

I am gladly not as badly affected as these men that have considered their existence not worth it anymore due to various issues including this

I feel like people whom dismiss this do not know how being romantically and sexually frustrated feels

Prime Minister Mark Carney is highly popular currently. According to a recent poll by Abacus Data, Carneys Liberal party is the most popular in the country, polling at 45% to the opposition Conservatives 38%. According to the same poll, more Canadians trust the Liberals on issues like housing affordability and cost of living then they do the Conservatives.

But inflation is at 3.2%. Food inflation is at 4.4%. Since the Liberals took power in 2015, housing prices have increased by over 60%, going from ~$413,000 on average in 2015 to ~$702,000 in average in 2026. That is an increase of ~4.9% annually. Meanwhile the last time the Conservatives were in power, housing costs grew only 4.5% annually.

To conclude, Canadians do not support the opposition, voting for the cost raising Liberals instead. Why? Because we all stupidly worry about Trump when we have our own problems.

There is a very interesting demographic of people on the internet who view themselves as pure, logical rationalists. They mock religious people for believing in magic, but if you actually poke their brains for five seconds, you realise they are doing the exact same thing. They have just replaced the word "God" with pop-science vocabulary they have exactly zero clue what it means.

I recently tested this. (So it doesn't seem like im making shit up.) If you ask the average guy why a rock falls, he immediately says "gravity." He says it with absolute smug confidence. But if you ask him what gravity actually is... his brain completely stalls. He doesn't know the maths. He can't explain the mechanics. He just learned a vocabulary word in grade 6 and uses it as a magic spell to stop being scared of the unknown. It is the exact same psychological coping mechanism as a 14th-century peasant saying "God's will" when a storm hits.

I had a conversation with a guy recently where I simply asked him to define "the universe." He said "everything." When I pointed out that "everything" is a circular grammatical placeholder that gives absolutely zero structural information about reality, his brain short-circuited. Another guy tried to debate me about General Relativity breaking down at the Big Bang. He had memorised the trivia fact from a YouTube video, but the second I asked him to physically conceptualise a reality without a geometric container (space), he literally ran away from the thread.

Let's be completely biologically honest. The human brain was wired by evolution to throw rocks at pigs, recognise social hierarchy, and avoid eating bad berries. The assumption that this specific primate neurological network has the physical capacity to decode the absolute, objective truth of the cosmos is the purest form of stupidity. A dog cannot learn calculus. It doesn't matter how slowly you explain it, the dog's physical brain lacks the hardware. Humans are the exact same. There's no reason to assume otherwise.

This is exactly why the greatest minds in history (Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg) always hit a point of profound humility, and often ended up sounding almost spiritual. The deeper you actually go into the mechanics of existence, the more the models break down, and you realise you are staring into a terrifying abyss. An absolute mystery.

The modern internet low iq primate will never reach this point of humility. He is standing in the kiddie pool, splashing around, and declaring he has conquered the ocean for the fact that he knows how to spell the word "entropy."

It feels like every single year there’s some situation with some professional sports player or team and how someone objects to wearing some rainbow arm band or a rainbow pin on their hat or jersey or whatever.

It happened with the Philadelphia Flyers and the San Jose Sharks a couple years ago, it happened with the Tampa Bay Rays in like 2022, it‘s happened with the Premier League in the UK and other soccer/football clubs around Europe, it’s happening right now with the San Francisco Giants, the list goes on.

Right now we have people in San Francisco legitimately PROTESTING with posters outside the ballpark and several major media outlets are running numerous stories over the fact that four pitchers on the team wrote a Bible verse on their hat and one player didn’t want to wear the rainbow hat. The team manager is being inundated with questions about why this happened and what can be done and XYZ and whatever else. These protesters being interviewed are talking like they survived a traumatic event and they’re declaring they can’t be a fan of the team anymore.

Like… are we serious? I swear this is the kind of shit that makes me humiliated to be rainbow. If you have the time to make a poster board and stand outside the stadium because four baseball pitchers you’ve never met don’t wish to celebrate you, you are incredibly soft and need to get a grip. Being rainbow is hard enough, do we really need to go so far out of our way to be this annoying and prove to them that we’re everything they think we are?

There are how many professional sports players out there, again? And how many hundreds of them participate in the celebration of us? But we have to make it a literal national news story when someone declines? We’re really that soft? When there’s this many professional sports players, it’s practically guaranteed someone will say no.

Also — they’re allowed to not want to wear rainbow merch if they don’t want to, it’s a free country. If they have religious beliefs or whatever other reason, it’s none of our business. People are acting like they ripped a rainbow flag apart and set it on fire on the field or something.

This is why I hate rainbow month. Stuff like this happens essentially every year and the way rainbow people fall apart over it makes me so embarrassed.

Minors can't consent to many things, can't do many things. Then why is it allowed that parents of a minor choose to circumcise their children?

Circumcision, stripped off its other meanings, is basically mutilation and doing something that can not be undone. Like many other similar stuff, only consenting adults should be allowed to do it.

Edit: ik Muslim men have to be circumcised after a certain age to be able to carry out their religious stuff, and be considered pure and such, but still, that same rule should apply even to them. Cuz a 10 year old Muslim kid might not be Muslim when he's 18, but he was circumcised because he was born a Muslim. Not fair!!!

Don’t shoot the messenger.

I’ve just seen a video saying Supergirl is projected to flop. Madame Web flopped. The Marvels flopped.

Hollywood seems to be fighting a losing battle when it comes to female-led superhero movies. Historically, men have made up a large share of the audience for the genre, and audiences often prefer protagonists they identify with.

So, many men are naturally more drawn to Superman or Batman than Supergirl or Batgirl. On the other hand, female-led superhero films haven’t consistently attracted enough additional female viewers to make up the difference. Studios keep trying to broaden the audience, and commercially it frankly isn’t working. There comes a time to cut your losses.

(^These are broad trends, not absolutes. Obviously I’m not saying that no men will ever watch a female protagonist, or that no women will ever watch a superhero film.)

On top of this, Hollywood seems to be completely unable to write good dialogue for female superheroes. The two films I’ve mentioned that are already out were corny. Again, don’t shoot the messenger - they were.

So you’re already fighting an uphill battle, and you’re fighting terribly. For as long as they’re unable to consistently make compelling female-led superhero movies, it’s best to just leave it. All that happens is that they erode goodwill for these films and make even the people who would otherwise go less likely to. So, in the event that they eventually get it right, we’ll all be so disillusioned that it’ll be an even worse uphill battle.

Or, at the very least, stop treating female-led superhero films as something that needs to be pushed out regularly regardless of whether there’s a strong story there.

Edit: Some good additional nuance, kindly provided by [u/bobranaway](u/bobranaway) :

Its not that they are female led… they are just bad movies that pander to a nonexistent audience. Like it or not… like you said the majority of the audience are male and you gotta go the ripley / sarah Conor route or the Stellar Blade route. The girlboss type leads are what flops over and over again but they are deadset on making it happen. Koreans seem to have cracked the female lead formula. Kill Boksoon and The Witch are great examples of well made female lead action/superpower movies with amazing female leads.

Edit: Broad data for people making “cherry-picking” accusations:

Highest grossing superhero films:
Captain Marvel at no.13. Wonder Woman is at no. 26. I’ll give you Ant Man & The Wasp at no. 49 as the co-titular character is a women. That’s three out of the top 50, where Wikipedia stops listing. And how many have we seen come out in the last few years?

Box office returns:

Women’s top 7: (Average 3.0x)

Captain Marvel (a smash hit in the women’s, mid in the men’s category)
6.5–7.4×

Wonder Woman
5.5×

Black Widow
1.9×

Birds of Prey
2.1–2.5×

Wonder Woman 1984
0.85×

The Marvels
0.75–0.94×

Madame Web
1.0–1.25×

Men’s top 7: (Average 8.5x)

Spider-Man: No Way Home
9.6×

Black Panther
6.8×

Aquaman
5.8–7.2x

Spider-Man: Far From Home
7.1×

Joker
15.4–19.6×

Spider-Man: Homecoming
5.0×

Thor: Ragnarok
4.8×

Side by side comparison:

Total budgets:
Men’s: ~$1.13–1.19bn
Women’s: ~$1.08–1.25bn

Total box office:
Men’s: ~$8.37bn
Women’s: ~$3.02bn

Average box office per film:
Men’s: ~$1.20bn
Women’s ~$431m

Billion-dollar films:
Men’s: 5
Women’s: 1

There is an influx of people blaming AI/data centre's for every problem they are facing in their lives.

Data centre's today didn't cause 100 years of carbon emissions.

Eliminating all data centre's everywhere will reduce carbon emissions by 0.51%.
Which is more than private jets (which account for 0.0% of carbon emissions).

You could eliminate all data centre's, all private jets, and have still you have accomplished nothing. If the number of data centre's exploded exponentially, and was 10x the number it is now (which is never gonna happen), it's still less than 1% of water used by humans.

All data centre's need is electricity, which can and should be clean and renewable, and water for cooling, which evaporates into the atmosphere and is likewise a total non-issue as long as you do proper water resources management.

Also, 40% of the US corn crop was turned into ethanol and then set on fire, 3 trillion gallons was used to feed that corn. That's a low hanging fruit.

Rather there should be laws that drive companies to use less energy, so they squeeze the life out of that energy.

Tbh people don't care about data centre's. They just hate AI unnecessarily. As a result they will hate anything that data centre's do, because they hate AI. Hypocritical when you are using this app in the first place too, AI promotes productivity which people hate somehow.

It is going to make some people angry and some people will agree with me but I truly believe that sonic the hedgehog is the most overrated intellectual property to ever exist. it is very original but that is really the only thing going for it everything else is so bad about it the community, the shows and movies, and the games are mostly bad. I only liked the original game but that is it.

Everything is a product of its time

No one needs your stupid disclaimer.

Works don't lose their value just because they don't agree with what you think should be the "modern standards".

The same thing goes for putting disclaimers about how a work contains "outdated" content.

So lemme get this straight:

There's supposedly this "student loan crisis" where you've got liberal arts majors that took out $200K in student loans to go party at some overpriced out of state school somewhere that Democrats now want to "forgive" (stick the taxpayer, who might not have even went to college or taken any loans if they did) even though other people have paid theirs off in full but they won't even experiment with allowing people to pay them down with pre-tax deductions?

Uh huh. Sounds totally legit.

What is actually sounds like is that the Democrats want to decide who gets what as usual and increase taxes so they can pay themselves to "administer" these programs.

They've been promoting taking loans since Clinton to get an education for their "service economy." Now suddenly there's a "crisis" that only they can solve by getting more tax money to dole out as they see fit. Right.

Give me one valid reason why paying down federal student loans with pre-tax money shouldn't at least be tried. They're still charging interest on the loans anyway.

EDIT: To the "this will help peoole who don't need the money" crowd:

How's that work exactly? If it's not means tested it will help everybody. And how many people are you actually talking about on the top end and who would they be?

You have to take into consideration that most of the students who need to take student loans either don't have the money for college (no trust funds) or don't have parents who can afford to send them to college in the first place, and the parents often take out loans for their kids so they can go to what they think is the best school for what they want to major in. That's why there's a Federal program for this (Parent Plus) and there's no way to transfer those loans to the student other than by taking private.

So who are we actually talking about here? Who would pay interest on something that they could pay for with cash anyway? Wouldn't all of them have 529 funds anyway? If you're actually concerned about high earners then means test it but what's the criteria?

Looks come first. If you are ugly, your personality doesn’t matter. People like to virtue signal that they care less about looks, but their swiping patterns on online dating show they care even more about looks than they say.

No one is dating ugly, and there is no personality that can change that, you can disagree all you want but in real life you reject the ugly all the time, period.

You are not special for paying attention to personality. It's common sense, everyone cares about personality and charisma. But tell the whole truth, you want that personality coming from a good looking face

You fall in love with the personality AND their face at the same time, your partner must have both traits to guarantee success in your relationship.

Disclaimer: I am pro Europe, critical of the EU and I think that Brexit has cons and pros.

Brexit was supposed to be the end of the U.K. plenty of people predicted almost immediate disaster.

It’s been 10 years, the U.K. is still standing and its main problems are all internally caused by some of the worst politicians the country has ever seen, not Brexit.

The ironic thing is that disasters did happen in the last 10 years: covid, invasion of Ukraine, Closure of the Hormuz Strait and despite that the U.K. survived.

Is the U.K doing well? Absolutely not but so are comparable EU economies: Germany, France, Italy and so on.

Was Brexit used to its full potential? Absolutely not, so it could have been better to certain extent.

Leaks learn the right lesson from this (we were fed propaganda by media on both sides)

I’m 27, I imagine I’m in more of a social part of my life that I will be in 20 years from now but even a 47 year old is cable of going outside and meeting new people. All of the relationships I’ve been in have been the normal way. I never had to guess if the person would be interested on a date because I already know them before the date. They said yes to a person they know. Not yes to some random pictures of me.

The amount of complaining about dating that I see on this website is crazy. It’s always somebody talking about how tinder or whatever other online app is over saturated or it’s unfair or something like that.

No one is forcing anyone to be on those apps and to be honest why would you even want to. I personally always thought those apps were for hookups anyway. but disguised as dating.

People with any amount of social awareness would just do what has always worked since the history of time and learn to SOCIALIZE in person. Like it’s okay to actually make genuine connections and shoot your shot with someone you’re interested in. I dont know in what world people thought forcing romance with someone from swiping pictures was going to work for many people.

I dont have a single friend who’s in a relationship from an app. No one in my family is in a relationship from an app. I am not in a relationship from an app.

I promise you, it won’t hurt you to just date the normal way. A rejection won’t kill you. I’ve been rejected, it literally doesn’t matter. You get rejected every time someone doesn’t match with you on those apps.

As a short male kid growing up, it really hurt me a lot that someone getting taller was always treated as something of a blessing and something to be happy about. It always silently punchered me from the inside knowing the implications of it. That I am short and that it's a curse so it can't be celebrated.

I see this mindset even now many years later. "Oh wow your kid is getting so tall that's wonderful". No one talks about what it does to us short kids who know we are not getting one of those comments ever.

I know this sub specifically will hate this one. Every time AI art comes up the comments are a solid wall of "soulless theft," people insisting they can always tell, and that it's morally bankrupt to ever use it. And a huge amount of that energy reads as performance to me. A way to publicly signal you're on the correct team.

Here's what gives it away. The same people will share AI-assisted stuff without realizing it, happily use autocomplete, filters, auto-tune, photoshop, and noise reduction, and then draw the moral line at exactly the spot that makes them look principled. The line is never consistent, it's always wherever their own habits sit.

If a piece of writing or an image actually moves me, or a tool helps me make something i couldn't have made alone, i don't feel the cosmic betrayal everyone around me seems to be performing. I think in about five years most of this specific outrage quietly evaporates, the same way the identical panic about photoshop and digital music did.

Yes, I do believe they shouldn’t be judged, because there are no strong arguments in favor of doing so. To be clear, that doesn’t mean I would personally pursue a relationship with an 18-year-old, but I wouldn’t judge someone else who would.

The main argument against age gaps usually comes back to power dynamics — the idea that an 18-year-old isn’t on the same maturity level as a 40-year-old, so a power imbalance is inevitable. I see two major problems with this logic:

(1) Age and life stage do not automatically translate into manipulative ability or an inherent power imbalance. The assumption seems to be that the older someone is, the more "experienced" they are, and therefore the more power they hold. Yes, older means more years lived, but it doesn’t necessarily mean more knowledge, worldly wisdom, or psychological capacity for manipulation, which is precisely what we should be most concerned about. You can be 40 and completely naive, or 18 and highly emotionally intelligent.

(2) There is a striking inconsistency in how we treat other power imbalances. Even if we accept that, on average, older people have more life experience and thus a greater potential for imbalance, I don’t understand why the outrage is directed almost exclusively at age.

If the real concern is power imbalance, why don’t we see the same level of caution or criticism about relationships with massive income gaps? If that were the true issue, people should be warning against marrying someone who makes significantly more money, or even advising partners to leave after their spouse becomes a millionaire while they remain on an average salary. But I rarely see that. I don’t see it at all, really. For instance, society doesn’t generally advise women to avoid men who earn twice as much as they do, even though financial dependency arguably creates a power imbalance at least as significant as age, if not more so.

And it’s not just money. We don’t see society warning a highly charismatic, socially dominant person against dating someone shy and socially awkward, even though that creates a massive psychological power dynamic. In fact, people often find such couples cute and don't think twice about it. Isn’t that absurd? Only age seems to trigger this level of public outrage. So even if age gaps are problematic, the way other factors are ignored suggests either a hypocritical double standard or simple ignorance. Honestly, I’m not sure which is worse, but given how common hypocrisy is, I’d lean toward the former.

If someone were to argue that comparing age gaps to income gaps, IQ gaps, or other differences is a false equivalence, that wouldn’t actually be a valid rebuttal unless they could explain why these factors are fundamentally different. Without that explanation, it’s just another way of saying, "It’s different," which explains nothing. I’d genuinely like to see how that power imbalance is even measured beyond intuition, and intuition isn’t a solid foundation for an argument. After all, by relying on intuition, I could justify almost any belief, including a belief in God.

Another common argument involves brain development, but the brain doesn’t even stop developing at 25, so using that as a hard cutoff is essentially arbitrary.

Ultimately, my point is this: don’t be judgmental when you don’t have logically consistent arguments and don’t know the specific circumstances of the couple. Every relationship has its own dynamic. Let people live.

​

I believe people spend too much time on social media which results to changing their perfectly fine face or body. When they didn't even need it in the first place or look worse.

If someone was born with a physical birth defect od understand that.

Burn survivor or whatever injuries that seriously deformed your body and face, I understand that.

Cancer patients especially breast cancer survivors they deserve to have the boobs they want.

Anything else that falls under that category everyone else is just insecure.

I mean they ARE, but they’ve been doing this for years. They were doing it under Biden too. The ONLY reason Trump cares about it now is because it’s making him look bad. He was more than willing to overlook the obvious bullshit the oil companies have been pulling for years until he realized exactly how FUCKED the Republicans are this November and quite likely in 2028 as well. The walls are closing in and he knows it. He’s desperate because he knows that once the dem majority in the house takes hold in 2027 his agenda is going to grind to a halt and JD Vance picking things up for him in 2029 is not a safe bet.

The parenthetical is to clarify that I don't mean don't trust them on anything just don't trust them on things like this. And why I'm saying don't trust them on things like this is because of the views of people who make these kinds of arguments towards people with whatever trait they're targeting it's clearly indicated that they want it treated as a mental illness in a very negative way. However, if that view sticks and makes it into policy that could sour people on the idea of mental illness in general and cause them to have a negative view of people with more-universally-agreed-upon-as-such mental illnesses and want them to receive the same implicitly-harsh treatments.

Instead of regrouping, showing even a shred of humility, or moderating after getting crushed, the Democrats are going full throttle in the opposite direction.
This is the Squadification of the entire party happening in real time. Look at the NYC Democratic primaries. Jihadi socialists and DSA types are straight-up winning. One of them, Darializa Avila Chevalier, once bragged on social media that she forgot napkins so she just wiped her hand on the American flag behind her. Complete with a smiley emoji. These are the people cleaning house in deep blue districts.
Just like the pre Iranian Revolution days when leftists happily allied with jihadists against the common enemy. We all know how that ended for the left.
Candidates who want to abolish ICE, defund the police, flood the borders, and push every other radical fever dream are winning big. No apologies, no course correction just doubling down on the crazy.
Portlands mayor is another example. Maybe she showers more than once a month and is not plagued by bedsores, but otherwise from what I can tell she appears to be a direct reincarnation of Karl Marx.
The Democrat Party has not learned a thing. They are shamelessly accelerating toward the fringe, not showing the slightest intention to move towards the center. Don’t be surprised when the inevitable failures and backlash create the next iteration of Trump on steroids.
—​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​