Youtube comments of Jj T (@jjt1881).
-
1800
-
366
-
201
-
125
-
125
-
117
-
108
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
68
-
64
-
54
-
54
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
44
-
Hey, History Buffs, 16:16 Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas never met Christopher Columbus. He was the son of one of the men who accompanied Columbus on one of his trips. He himself traveled in 1502 to the New World, but in the expedition of Nicolás de Ovando, whose job was to relieve Francisco de Bobadilla of his post as Governor of Hispaniola. Francisco de Bobadilla had imprisoned Columbus before, but Columbus was not at the Hispaniola at that time. Actually, one of Nicolás de Ovando's objectives was to investigate what had happened and take Bobadilla back to Spain. When Colombus finally arrived in his 4th voyage, Nicolás de Ovando did not allow him to disembark. Just then a hurricane broke out and Columbus barely escaped with his life. During all that time, Bartolomé de Las Casas was nowhere near Columbus. Some say that he was in Santo Domingo and helped heal the sick during the epidemic that developed right after the hurricane and others say that he was inland, managing his lands. Please, correct that mistake about Bartolomé de Las Casas being one of Columbus' men or witnessing what Columbus did. He never saw it because he was not there.
43
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
@tracystevens6930 You are distorting what the page says. It says that CRT "question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse." To criticize liberalism doesn't make you "anti" Liberalism, but you portray them as anti-Liberal as if liberalism is "the enemy". Besides, the section dedicated to "views" specifically says: "The theory is radical... in the sense that it questions fundamental assumptions.... And unlike some strands of academic and legal thought, critical race theory has an open and activist agenda, with an emphasis on storytelling and personal experience. It's about righting wrongs, not just questing after knowledge.... Many of their ideas are not radical today in the sense of being outside the mainstream: Critical race theory is widely taught and studied." Now, please, respond without attacking personally. Otherwise, I will confirm my suspicion that you haven't taken the time to read it.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
There were war crimes on both sides, however, they were not equivalent, either in magnitude or intentionality. War Crimes in the Republican side were always the result of a lack of control of the Republican authorities over a territory they only controlled nominally, but not in practice. Those crimes were always committed by specific political sub-groups (e.g. some - but not most- Anarchist cells, and later, by the Stalinist controlled Communist Party). Other crimes were the result of explosions of uncontrolled political fervor that occurred at some particular moments in time. However, they were never condoned nor commanded by the Government of the Republic. On the other hand, War Crimes on the Nationalist side were the result of detailed orders issued even before the conflict begun (see, e.g. General Mola's detailed description of the assassinations that needed to take place after the coup to eliminate all "political enemies" of the new regime. This was carefully planned and executed in a systematic way by the Nationalists. That is why this documentary does not mention the crimes on the Rep. side in the same vein as the ones committed by Franco. It is to avoid the false equivalence and flawed conclusion that you are defending, i.e. that "Franco and Spain were forced to fight such a bloody war." That is a lie created by Mola and later by the Francoist regime in order to justify their crimes to the Spanish people. This lie continued for the next 40 years. And still, you are defending it in the XXIst Century. Please, educate yourself. Believe in history, not in propaganda.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Es absurdo lo que dices porque es exactamente lo contrario. Tanto la primera pregunta de la intervención como el discurso posterior de Jaime Miguel De los Santos carecen de lógica. De hecho, al analizarlo, el discurso del diputado del PP resulta vergonzoso debido a su manipulación, falsedad y falta de fundamentos. En primer lugar, su pregunta era tendenciosa y se basaba en una premisa falsa. No es cierto que la mayoría de los jóvenes rechacen el feminismo; de hecho, se trata de una minoría, especialmente encontrada entre los jóvenes miembros del PP y de Vox. Sin embargo, la manera en la que formuló su pregunta daba la impresión de que una mayoría de jóvenes rechazaba el feminismo, lo cual es falso. La segunda intervención de Jaime Miguel De los Santos fue aún peor, ya que se trata literalmente de una falacia. Combinó dos temas inconexos en un intento de demostrar algo que no se deduce del ejemplo. Es decir, el apoyo o rechazo al feminismo no guarda relación con una acusación de corrupción contra una persona específica, incluso si fuera cierta. Como mucho, se podría acusar al PSOE de hipocresía o corrupción, pero eso no tiene ninguna conexión con el supuesto rechazo al feminismo entre la juventud española.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
I have seen some of those viewpoints and I do understand the fear about some Islamic teachings. Some of them are in the Coran and the more literal schools of thought do tend to be the more extreme. I do fear that and I do understand your feeling of uneasiness. However, note that it also happens in Christianity and in Judaism. In general, all monotheistic religions are intolerant by nature (compare that to the religious tolerance of polytheism in history and you will be amazed). Of course, some of the monotheistic religions are more intolerant than others. Right now Islam is probably the most infamous for that, but that does not mean that Christianity or Judaism cannot or have not been as intolerant as Islam. Actually, it is secularism, liberalism and the XVIII century Enlightenment ideas the ones responsible for our current liberal democracy. Liberal Democracy is not the antithesis of Islam, but of intolerance. If Liberal Democracy was born out of the Christian wars of religion (based on pure intolerance) why is it not possible for Islam to eventually do the same. Islam, as it is teached right now in Saudi Arabia or by the Muslim Brotherhood will, of course, never be liberal or democratic, but other ways of teaching Islam may. Remember, when you are talking about a whole religion you are generalizing not just about a particular way of believe in the present, but a whole web of believes in the past, present and future. What needs to be done in Islam is the same process of secularism and universality that eventually tamed (to a certain reasonable level) the other two great religions. By the way, I do not believe in any god whatsoever, but do respect those who believe as long as they respect me.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
THE HISTORICAL TRUTH BEHIND WAR CRIMES IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR.
It is true that there were war crimes on both sides. However, they were not equivalent, neither in type, magnitude or scope. War Crimes on the Republican side were always the result of a lack of control of the Republican authorities over their territory. They only controlled it nominally, but never totally, in practice. Those crimes were always committed by specific political sub-groups (e.g. some - but not most- Anarchist cells, and later, by the Stalinist controlled Communist Party). Other crimes were the result of explosions of uncontrolled political fervor that occurred at some particular moments in time (e.g. the burning of some Catholic churches for political reasons at specific times before or during the war). However, those crimes were never commanded nor condoned by the Government of the Republic.
On the other hand, War Crimes on the Nationalist side were the result of detailed orders issued even before the conflict began (see, e.g. General Mola's detailed description of the thousand of assassinations that needed to take place after the coup to eliminate all "political enemies" of the new regime. This was carefully planned and executed in a systematic way by the Nationalists. That is why this documentary does not mention the crimes on the Rep. side in the same vein as the ones committed by Franco. It is not a simple choice, but they needed to do it to avoid the false equivalence and flawed conclusion that some people in the comments are defending, i.e. that "Franco and Spain were forced to fight such a bloody war." That is a lie created by Mola and later by the Francoist regime in order to justify their crimes to the Spanish people. This lie continued for the next 40 years. And still, you are defending it in the XXIst Century. Please, educate yourself. Believe in history, and not in propaganda.
This is not a mere opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of historians that have studied the Spanish conflict, and it is backed and corroborated by tones of historical data. So please, do not repeat the same Francoist talking points without thinking, as if they were twitter memes. You would be repeating mythology, not history.
Sincerely,
Dr. C.T.
Ph.D. in History
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
From the point of view of the person, I would not call Alfred the great as much as Alfred the rounded, in the humanistic sense of the word, i.e. great in many things. However, from the point of view of the nation, I think he deserves the simple title "the great", as he was the father of the kingdom of England, and by extension, of the British nation as well. Certainly, in relation to its importance to world culture in general, not as great as Charlemagne, who basically began the notion of Europe as a distinct and particular civilization. Alfred may have been The Great for the nation of England, but Charlemagne was The Great for an entire continent.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
As you will see in the series (which is great, by the way) the Russians and Russian Nationalists are having a blast of Patriotic fervor and hate propaganda, sometimes it is based on facts, sometimes it is pure manipulation. And there are a lot of conspiratorial theories and a lot of anger from the pro Russian side. There have been excesses and crimes on both sides, there is no doubt about it. But the way in which Russia and the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine have reacted speaks tons about their paranoia (some of it based on real dangers, but most of it imaginary and even psychotic)
In my case, after months of researching the topic (By which I mean reading every day dozens of studies, watching hundreds of videos and analyzing hundreds of articles from every newspaper in the world) I have come to the conclusion that the basics of Russia's reaction to what happened in Ukraine has to do with a sense of military vulnerability in what they consider to be their buffer zone, a huge blow against their project for a commonwealth of independent states in Eurasia, and a dangerous ultra-nationalist agenda from Alexander Dugin that somehow has managed to take over most Russians and has infiltrated many Slavic people around the world... But keep watching, surely you will get to your own conclusions. Take care. PS Don't pay attention to the trolls that insult you. They are been taken care of by good hearted people in the web. :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Por razones obvias. La CPI no juzga a organizaciones terroristas como Hamás o Hezbollah porque su jurisdicción se limita a individuos, no a grupos. Además, solo puede actuar en países que han ratificado el Estatuto de Roma o si el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU lo remite, lo que rara vez ocurre en estos casos. Ni Israel ni el Líbano han ratificado el estatuto de Roma, por lo que la CPI no tiene jurisdicción en esos países. Palestina, sin embargo, sí es un Estado miembro de la CPI desde 2015. Si quieres que los juzguen, díselo a los Israelíes. Pero dudo que extiendan su cooperación para arrestar a eventuales acusados porque prefieren usar sus propios métodos, así sean legales o militares. Y eso sin contar con otros factores políticos y geopolíticos que complican aún más su misión, e.g., Donald Trump tratando de destruir la CPI.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I was following you until 24:30 the 1973 coup in Chile "was almost locally organized and the US just watch"(?) That's the understatement of the century, and demonstrably false. No, it wasn't. The US under Nixon became actively involved in overthrowing democracy as soon as Allende was elected and they tried their best to prevent him from being inaugurated. (See the unclassified documents, particularly, Kissinger, who said: “Make the Economy Scream” referring to the CIA plot to undermine democracy in Chile https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/) They even trained and paid for an unsuccessful coup months before Pinochet. The only thing that surprised the Americans was that Pinochet decided to betray Allende and launch the final coup. They weren't expecting it, since Pinochet, in a similar manner to Franco in Spain, appeared at the time to be loyal to the government, and waited until the last minute to show his real intentions. So, no, what you said was not accurate in the least. The US had a huge role to play in overthrowing Allende in Chile.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm from Virginia, and I voted two days ago. Trevor Noah is great at analyzing current politics on a national level. However, I'm not quite sure he was at the same level analyzing the gubernatorial elections here. It wasn't the things that he mentions (the US Senate, Manchin, Synema, Trump, etc). It was a very simple fact: Cities vs. Suburban and rural counties. That's it. The big cities are overwhelmingly democrat and the suburban and rural areas are staunchly republican, but the blue cities in Virginia are not enough to carry the whole state because the majority of the population lives outside of them. With the sole exception of Virginia Beach, all major cities in Virginia are democratic bastions, and they carry their districts with them easily.
Now, the ethnic composition of the big cities in Virginia is 20%-36% African-American. There is a 60%- 62% white population, but all of them are well-educated professionals (i.e. they have either Bachelors, Masters or Ph.D.) They have access to high-paying jobs in the private or government sector). And even though the blacks are not usually that well educated or paid, they do not tend to support republican policies, mainly because they detest the people who vote for them, and republican policies typically affect them more than the rest. Thus, they also vote democrat. That may be due to simple historical accountability. The very same people (white racists) who voted democrat before segregation ended up changing to republicans when Lyndon Johnson supported them. i.e. for them, the Republican Party represents the interests of the very same racist whites who supported segregation and other racist policies in the South for decades, which is not far from reality.
The situation is completely reversed in the rural parts. The vast majority is White (90-96%) with 1% or less of them African Americans. And even when in the suburban areas they tend to be reasonably well-educated professionals, most people in the rural areas have a poor to no education, meaning High-School or less. Those are the people who work at jobs for which they didn't need a higher degree to get. The lack of higher education and the lack of exposure to other ethnicities combined with a strong religiosity and a sometimes 99% white population make them ideal candidates for easy indoctrination and political lying. That means that the vast majority of them are already conservatives (in many cases, all of them) and the Republican party has no difficulty getting their vote. They just have to ask nicely. For example, Trump is very unpopular for most Virginians, probably 3/4ths or more of the state's population didn't vote for him neither in 2016 nor in 2020. That meant that the only alternative the Republican candidate had was to fake his past following Trump in everything and they made it as if they've bought it. Of course, they know better. The problem is that they are easily lied to, they don't read, they are easily distracted and incredibly ignorant of the world. The ethnic composition and level of education of the rest of their district are also very similar if a little less pronounced than in the big cities, i.e. 40-46% white, 20-21% black, etc.
Note that I did not include the Virginia Beach district and its surrounding areas. Here is the explanation why most people there voted Republican. Most of the people living in Virginia Beach county are either army veterans or their line of work depends on the army. Although their education level varies among them, they tend to be well educated, well off, or both. And all of it is thanks to the US army. Now, if you sign up for the US army either for ideological reasons (e.g. proudly serve your country, defend democracy, because you like guns and shooting, etc.), chances are you already sympathize with many conservative points of view. And if your job depends on the army, chances are you are not well educated and had to create your own business or to work for a business that works for the army. It gets even worse if you enlist in the army just to get a job, an education, or to get US citizenship. That means you are probably poorly educated or not educated at all. Thus Virginia Beach is staunchly conservative, and republicans usually have a field day with them. But Virginia Beach and its surrounding areas, are the only exception in all major cities, which confirms the rule.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Muchos aquí han comentado sobre la reacción de la ministra de igualdad, pero están omitiendo el punto más importante: tanto la primera pregunta de la intervención como el discurso posterior de Jaime Miguel De los Santos carecen de lógica. De hecho, al analizarlo, el discurso del diputado del PP resulta vergonzoso debido a su manipulación, falsedad y falta de fundamentos. En primer lugar, su pregunta era tendenciosa y se basaba en una premisa falsa. No es cierto que la mayoría de los jóvenes rechacen el feminismo; de hecho, se trata de una minoría, especialmente encontrada entre los jóvenes miembros del PP y de Vox. Sin embargo, la manera en la que formuló su pregunta daba la impresión de que una mayoría de jóvenes rechazaba el feminismo, lo cual es falso. La segunda intervención de Jaime Miguel De los Santos fue aún peor, ya que se trata literalmente de una falacia. Combinó dos temas inconexos en un intento de demostrar algo que no se deduce del ejemplo. Es decir, el apoyo o rechazo al feminismo no guarda relación con una acusación de corrupción contra una persona específica, incluso si fuera cierta. Como mucho, se podría acusar al PSOE de hipocresía o corrupción, pero eso no tiene ninguna conexión con el supuesto rechazo al feminismo entre la juventud española.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Como estadounidense, te puedo decir que tienes razón. Hasta ChatGPT me acaba de advertir que este mismo texto puede violar sus "usage policies", ¡Dios mío! Es una realidad innegable que existe un trato preferencial y desproporcionado hacia Israel. EE.UU. le permite todo. Es un trato completamente desproporcional e incluso contraproducente, que nos ha hecho mucho daño. Y lo peor es que casi todas las grandes figuras políticas con poder lo apoyan, ya sean demócratas o republicanos. La población, en cambio, no lo respalda tanto. Diría que, si acaso, es una minoría, pero es una minoría con poder (generalmente los más conservadores, sobre todo los pentecostales evangélicos). Gran parte de la culpa la tiene el llamado lobby de Israel, un cabildo político que ha dominado a ambos partidos desde la época de Truman y que ha pasado de generación en generación como una enfermedad política congénita. Estoy completamente en contra de esta situación. El lobby de Israel tiene un control sin precedentes en la política estadounidense. Cualquier otro país con el mismo poder en Estados Unidos sería considerado un agente desestabilizador, pero no el maldito cabildo israelí. Lamentablemente, no es fácil traducir esa frustración en un movimiento político coherente, aunque seamos muchos los que la compartamos (tanto de izquierda como de derecha), y menos en el contexto político actual. Quizás esto no cambie hasta que terminen los problemas que causa Donald Trump y su nuevo partido fascista (el Partido Republicano ya no existe más que en nombre), pero eso podría tomar muchos años, incluso si Trump pierde. Esta situación solo podría cambiar si el Partido Republicano lo rechazara, pero no parece que eso vaya a pasar próximamente, y tampoco desaparecerán los ultraderechistas, racistas y machistas que lo apoyan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think we should all have a rational debate about this. There is a clear difference between economic migration (legal or illegal) on the one hand, and asylum seeking on the other. Asylum is a human right, whereas illegal migration is no right whatsoever. Of course, there is a real possibility that economic migrants also may try to pass as asylum seekers. In those cases, our country has every right to deny them entry. However, the two things must be clearly differentiated. We cannot treat one as if it were the other, as many in the popular media discussion do. Our law allows asylum seekers to apply either from a legal port of entry or not. The reasons are obvious. Asylum seekers may be fleeing from political persecution and if they have no other way to reach our shores we have to take that into consideration for the right of asylum to make sense. Think of the Cuban refugees (the Balseros) during the 90s. There was almost no other way for them to enter the U.S. except illegally. If we want to change the law we should also think about the consequences of denying the rights of asylum to everyone else, not just selectively (besides, asylum it is part of an international corpus of law that we have signed, so it is not so easy to get rid of it, as if we were living on an Island). There is another possibility, we could also restrict the definition of persecution to exclude some non-political forms of it (e.g. gang persecution), although that could be legally problematic and probably unfair to other kinds of non-state persecution, like religious persecution. Lastly, it is clear that if a person fleeing from gang violence in Honduras is able to live without persecution in Mexico, he or she should apply for asylum there. On the other hand, there is fairness, e.g. if you claim that MS13 is after you, it is worth noting that they have gangs on each side of the border, so living in the U.S. does not guarantee security from that particular gang. Lastly, it is worth emphasizing that asylum is a human right, whereas illegal migration is no right whatsoever. Economic migration, on the other hand is not an absolute right, it depends on the host country's laws and policies. Having all that in mind would make for a reasonable debate about the topic beyond inflammatory stereotypes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bernie is not a populist at all. He has never said that he and only he represents the "real people", nor that those who oppose him are not part of the polity. He simply says that the common man (workers, minorities, women, etc.) is not represented in politics and that must be changed. That is a democratic stance, not a populist one. On the other hand, Trum, Maduro, Erdogan, Putin, etc. they all claim that they and only they represent the "real people" and that those who oppose them do not belong to the polity. They are either traitors, foreign actors, liberals, etc. In some cases they are persecuted in other cases just discounted as phonies. Bernie Sanders has never done that. There is a big difference between a populist and a democrat (not in the sense of party affiliation, but in the sense of defender of democracy). Bernie defends democracy and social justice, not identity politics. Therefore, there is a huge difference between Bernie Sanders democratic stance and populist leaders, such as Trump, Erdogan, Maduro, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really want to congratulate you for all your amazing efforts, deep intuitive mathematical intuition and understanding of every single step to it, besides the graphics, that just blowed my mind out of proportion in a good way. You have demonstrated that you are, not just a good mathematician, but also a a good pedagogue too. That's what I love about muy best students, PASSION FOR KNOWLEDGE
Just one question, though... Are you familiar with the recent and old papers of this old soviet mathematician, now turned cosmologist Ukrainian called Alexander Alexandrovich Antonov? He grasp very much of the stuff you already discussed and has applied "very exotic ideas" by working on a controversial theory about the explanation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy using imaginary numbers? He seems an odd, brilliant, ex old-soviet sciences professor, but much of what he says begins to ring various bells while listening to you.
Again. i will love to have met you when I was just a Student of Logic, Philosophy of Mathematics, and Model Theory... so, to late for me, as I am already a PhD.
Anyway, KUDOS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@НиколайУльянкин-г6т OK. This is stupid because I'm probably talking to a 15-year-old boy, but just to make you understand. Your country is modernizing now, and they are doing great progress, but the US never stopped and it has the biggest war budget in the whole world. After Trump, it even got getting bigger (at least, that moron got one thing right.) The US armed forces are nowadays the biggest, most modern, trained, & ready armed forces in the world. End of discussion. If Russia comes second, it is only BY A LONG SHOT. That's reality, the rest just wishful thinking. Don't fool yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've seen your arguments, and they seem plausible, although a little difficult to follow step by step. In my case, it`s much more simpler. Only a civilization that had the capacity of interstellar traveling would be dangerous to us but again, such a civilization may perfectly well know that we exist (at least within a hundred-light-year radius). For others far beyond, our existence would pose no threat at all. Imagining an alien civilization whose intent is to exterminate us in such a vast universe seems more like a product of fear than a product of reason, and fear is never a good tool for analyzing a problem. Regarding them treating us as if we were ants (in the sense of stepping over us) would be quite anomalous for an intelligent civilization. After all, the only reason some people despise ants is that they are all over our Earth, and incredibly common; basically a nuisance. But that's not the scientific position about ants. We study ants, and the more we do, the more we find how amazing they are. Imagine finding an ant-like organism in Mars underground. Would we really destroyed them or study them avidly? Definitely the latter, not the former. If we find or are found by intelligent beings it won't be the common alien folk who greets us but their scientists. Thus, I have no problem with METI because the War of the Worlds scenario or similar Dark Forests scenarios do not reflect either science nor reason; only fear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, no era así para nada. Era un cálculo mucho más sofisticado. Léete, por ejemplo, los ensayos de Will Kymilicka sobre el tema, pero eso ya no importa. El pánico ha triunfado sobre la sensatez. Honestamente, me da igual, el que se fastidia es EE.UU, que es el principal empleador de indocumentados del mundo. De hecho, la mayoría de los que contratan ilegales viven en el sur de EE.UU. y son MAGAs. Hecho bastante inconveniente, pero que se pondrá de manifiesto cuando suban de precio todos los productos agrícolas producidos en el pais. El que rie el último, ríe mejor y nada más grato que dejar que las personas que persisten en su error a pesar de que se les haya advertido varias veces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is simply HORRIBLE, frightening, and profoundly depressing. I read the report: Ballistic Missile Defense: Threats and Challenges (2022), and it's worse than what the narrator says. We can't defend ourselves even from North Korea; not now, and not even in 15 years (by which time, NK would be more than capable of striking the US), let alone Russia or China. In a nutshell, in a nuclear war, we are ALL fvcked! 😮💨 🤯 ... 😔
P.S. What the narrator says at the end, namely that the Pentagon is confident they can respond & defend the US against a nuclear attack... Well, read the report because even if it is based on "outdated unclassified information" as the Pentagon claims, we have no chance.
In a nuclear war against Russia that has approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads as of 2022 (and at least 527 of them are MIRV-ICBMs, with 50 nuclear cones each), to say we can defend against that is simply WISHFUL THINKING.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Casper is not your pet. He is your friend as far as there can be friendships between predators and potential prey. Similar behaviors have been observed in the wild with other predators (e.g. lions, cheetahs, bears, etc.) or other dangerous wild animals (like hippos, elephants, etc.). They can form strong interspecies bonds with other animals in the wild under particular circumstances. Of course, unlike mammals, alligators are reptiles, which seems to be at odds with the concepts of social intelligence and empathy, but they do possess them, although to a lesser degree. The problem is that their social skills are not as developed as those of other animals like birds or mammals. Thus, it is not contradictory to say that Casper will be your friend until you stop being one for him. In their mind, if you are dead or, as you said "incapacitated", the survival instinct may kick up, which is quite typical for an animal genetically wired for predation. It may sound counterintuitive to be "eaten by your friend" but it wouldn't be that unusual even among members of the same species. In any case, it's not probable that he will attack you even if he has the opportunity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tal y como dije una vez lo repito: ¡Sánchez es el mejor presidente que ha tenido España, y no me importa lo que me diga nadie! Esa es la pura verdad. Mientras tanto, aquí tenemos a Trump, un expresidente con múltiples condenas, un narcisista extremo, abusador de los más débiles y manipulador de masas, al estilo de líderes autoritarios del pasado. En resumen, Trump es peligrosamente destructivo. Amenaza a sus propios ciudadanos y ha polarizado a la sociedad hasta el punto de enfrentar a la mitad del país contra la otra. Vosotros tenéis a Sánchez y no hacéis más que quejaros. ¿Quejas de qué? Aquí vivimos con miedo, bajo la amenaza constante de los sectores más radicalizados de su movimiento. No solo tememos por la violencia política o física, sino también por la persecución en el ámbito laboral: despidos masivos por razones ideológicas, humillaciones públicas, amenazas de eliminar dos tercios de los empleados federales y una presión asfixiante desde el gobierno. ¡Y esa máquina de represión solo lleva una semana en marcha! Trump ya tiene control sobre los tres poderes, respaldado por los multimillonarios más influyentes del mundo. Está desmantelando el gobierno federal con despidos masivos para reconstruirlo a su medida, colocando solo a sus leales, sin importar su preparación o competencia. No sabemos si nos estamos acercando a una dictadura o si ya lo somos. Y para colmo, los precios suben sin parar debido a sus tarifas y su caótica administración, cuyo único objetivo parece ser destruir las instituciones del país, la economía, el sistema judicial, los derechos civiles y la democracia misma. En fin, no sabéis lo que tenéis. Mirad a vuestro alrededor y os daréis cuenta del valor de un gobierno que, al menos, funciona y no convierte a sus propios ciudadanos en enemigos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
59:20 That's a lie! Allende was not paid by the KGB! All of Alexander Haig's "information" comes from the book The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for The Third World, Vol. 2 by Christopher Andrew (2005). Yet this book is completely questionable from a historical point of view, as it relays only on hand-written notes with no context and zero vetting process provided by Vasili Mitrokhin, the Russian co-author of the book and the originator of the questionable "Mitrokhin's notes" that he claims he got from the KGB archives. Thus, it can hardly be considered proof of any kind. Actually, Russia did release original documents of the Soviet Union financial contributions to other communist or sister parties in the world and the bribes described in Mitrokhin's notes are nowhere to be found, yet Andrew persist on blindly believing the material written on Mitrokhin's notes. The CEP, a conservative pro-Pinochet Chilean think tank conducted a study during the time that the old dictator was in London suddenly loosing his mental sanity and hoping no to be extradited to Spain. While many Latin Americans were shocked watching in television how Margaret Thatcher thanked one of the most brutal dictators in Latin American history for bringing "democracy" to Chile, the study did not bring the result the think tank was hoping to get. The investigators of the study had access to various archives from the Soviet Union and the KGB, but they were unable to find the dirt that the think tank was looking for to justify the blood they had in their hands by working for or supporting the illegal government of the dictator. The report actually confirmed a secret, but now unclassified CIA assessment that the Government of Salvador Allende was independent from the the Soviet Union. When it comes to Chile, another surprising fact is that Christopher Andrew completely downplays the well documented role of the CIA in Chile. Strangely he is not only very careful about what information not to add in his book from the sources he uses, but one of his main sources to cover the CIA operations in Chile relies largely in a compromised and discredited source. He relies largely in a book published in 1985 by the US ambassador to Chile previous to the coup, a book that had information later contradicted by the release of official documents of the CIA more than 10 years later. On top of that, the new declassified documents implicated the ex-ambassador himself in participating in the Nixon's "coup climate". It would have been more logical to use information from the National Security Archive and books by authors of this institution, that probably holds the largest record of unclassified documents of the role of the CIA in Latin America, or he could have used declassified records found in the history website of the United States Government. His poor and biased sources, his tendency to ignore information that contradicts Mitrokhin's notes, and his neglect to include material from the Latin American perspective make his information biased, inaccurate and ethnocentric.
1
-
1
-
Para que se informen los que no saben: ¿Por qué la CPI no juzga a organizaciones terroristas como Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? La CPI no juzga a organizaciones terroristas como Hamás o Hezbollah porque su jurisdicción se limita a individuos, no a grupos. Además, solo puede actuar en países que han ratificado el Estatuto de Roma o si el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU lo remite, lo que rara vez ocurre en estos casos. Ni Israel ni el Líbano han ratificado el estatuto de Roma, por lo que la CPI no tiene jurisdicción en esos países. Palestina, sin embargo, sí es un Estado miembro de la CPI desde 2015. Si quieres que los juzguen, díselo a los Israelíes. Pero dudo que extiendan su cooperación para arrestar a eventuales acusados porque prefieren usar sus propios métodos, así sean legales o militares. Y eso sin contar con otros factores políticos y geopolíticos que complican aún más su misión, e.g., Donald Trump tratando de destruir la CPI.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This my be the solution to the Fermi Paradox: We present a cosmic perspective on the search for life and examine the likely number of Communicating Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent (CETI) civilizations in our Galaxy by utilizing the latest astrophysical information. Our calculation involves Galactic star formation histories, metallicity distributions, and the likelihood of stars hosting Earth-like planets in their habitable zones, under specific assumptions which we describe as the Astrobiological Copernican Weak and Strong conditions. These assumptions are based on the one situation in which intelligent, communicative life is known to exist—on our own planet. This type of life has developed in a metal-rich environment and has taken roughly 5 Gyr to do so. We investigate the possible number of CETI civilizations based on different scenarios. At one extreme is the Weak Astrobiological Copernican scenario—such that a planet forms intelligent life sometime after 5 Gyr, but not earlier. The other is the Strong Astrobiological Copernican scenario in which life must form between 4.5 and 5.5 Gyr, as on Earth. In the Strong scenario (under the strictest set of assumptions), we find there should be at least 36 civilizations within our Galaxy: this is a lower limit, based on the assumption that the average lifetime, L, of a communicating civilization is 100 yr (since we know that our own civilization has had radio communications for this time). If spread uniformly throughout the Galaxy this would imply that the nearest CETI is at most 17,000 lt-yr away and most likely hosted by a low-mass M-dwarf star, likely far surpassing our ability to detect it for the foreseeable future, and making interstellar communication impossible. Furthermore, the likelihood that the host stars for this life are solar-type stars is extremely small and most would have to be M dwarfs, which may not be stable enough to host life over long timescales. We furthermore explore other scenarios and explain the likely number of CETI there are within the Galaxy based on variations of our assumptions.
The Astrobiological Copernican Weak and Strong Limits for Intelligent Life, 2020
1
-
1
-
1
-
The personality of the real Juan Pujol is that of a very smart and cunning coward, a rich spoiled kid with a spirit of adventure, and very little awareness of the consequences of his actions. People who knew him before all of this say as much. For example, many testified that Juan was never interested in politics during the Civil War and that his only reason for abandoning his post at the trenches was because he did not want to die fighting. He actually came from a very rich family in Cataluña, and he never lacked anything. He was accustomed to getting away with what he wanted using his skills as a trickster. Therefore, the easiest way for him to evade the fighting was simply to desert to the other side and claim that he was running away because of ideological reasons. The political situation, the war crimes, or the consequences of any side winning the war mattered very little to him. The nationalist side, at least, seemed a more suitable alternative to him, given his particular lifestyle, typical of a bourgeois mama's-boy. Also, if he played his cards well, he could get a position in the rear -which in fact, he achieved. On the other hand, Aracelli was perfect for him; she was the other side of the same coin. Both came from accommodated families and had a neck for lying and cheating, as well as getting away with doing as little as possible. They were very smart and skillful manipulators. In addition to that, she was also quite attractive when well dressed and she knew it. Therefore, she used her beauty and her witts to her advantage every time she could. Both behaved all their lives as a couple of astute and egocentric brats would do. That is probably what they liked about each other. This can be seen, e.g., when Araceli threatened to reveal it all to the Fascists simply to get back to Spain, even when that could have endangered her life, as well as the life of her husband. You can also observe the same when Juan outsmarted her by faking his own detention and interrogation by the British. Again, when Juan simply faked his own death just to get away from her wife and his children. E.g. if he were so scared of Nazis in Spain, he should have been doubly terrified of living in Venezuela at the time and he wasn't. On the other hand, it is possible that he was genuinely afraid, but then again, why leave Aracelli and his children behind believing that he was dead. She would have been in the same situation or worse. Again, only an irresponsible coward does that. It is a great historical coincidence that these two spoiled children wanted to spy for the British instead of the Nazis. Perhaps there was some moral conscience or even real compassion. Who knows...? In any case, if anyone wants to direct a motion picture about them, these facts should be taken into account. A comedy would, actually, suit these two real-life characters better than a drama; it would also be closer to the truth.
1
-
As usual, the typical far-right trolls with their false analogies want to falsely accuse Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of being "the same" as the Maduro regime. It won't stick because anybody with some brains knows it's not true. Nor it can be, as they are both social-democrats, not "socialists" in the communist sense. In the rest of the world, specially Europe, anyone would laugh at this ridiculous accusation. Only in rural America can that lie stick, and that is because of decades of indoctrination coming from the far-right on behalf of interests groups, like the NRA, the Koch brothers and, recently, THE TRUMPTARDS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamecaro92507 Basta ya de exageraciones y de precisiones bizantinas innecesarias, que ese argumento baladí lo llevo escuchando desde la década del 80. España, actualmente, es una democracia funcional, con garantías constitcionales, clara separación de poderes e imperio de la ley. Eso es más de lo que está sucediendo en EE.UU. Lo que está pasando en mi país es una locura, un caos político y una pesadilla cuasi-fascista, cuyas llamas, de extenderse, bien pueden acabar con la poca democracia que aún tenéis, por más de lo que digas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OK. Just saying for the Russian arm-chaired hawks I see below in the comments. Russia is modernizing now, and they are doing great progress, but the US never stopped and it has the biggest war budget in the whole world. After Trump, it even got bigger (at least, the moron got one thing right.) Nowadays, the US has the biggest, most modernized, revitalized, trained, & ready armed forces in the world. End of discussion. If Russia comes second, it is only BY A LONG SHOT. That's reality, the rest just wishful thinking. Don't fool yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bernie Sanders is not a populist, much less in the sense that Trump, Erdogan or Maduro are. There are not many studies of populism, but the best so far has been done by Princeton prof. Jan-Werner Müller. According to Müller’s studies, populist politicians do not defend democracy, but identity politics and power politics. Democratic people like Bernie Sanders accept the basic claim that “the people” is not just them or the ones who think like them, but that there are others who do not think like them that are also the people. Populists do not accept that claim. They talk about the “real people”, who they allegedly represent, but consider that anyone who is not with that group or criticizes them is not part of the real people and they should not count (e.g. real Americans vs. liberals, minorities, immigrants, pluralists, democrats, etc.) . On the other hand, criticizing the elites is not enough to be labeled a populist. Bernie Sanders does criticize elites and stands for the common man, but he does not defend that the common man is the “real people”, just a huge section of the electorate that does not have a say in politics. He does not stand for “them vs. us”, but for integration and social justice. That is not a populist message, but a democratic one. Populists are antielitists, but also antipluralists (and in the end, also antidemocratic). They claim that they and they alone represent the people. All other political competitors are illegitimate, and do not belong to ‘the people’. (see Trump message of real Americans vs. immigrants, democrats, liberals, etc. whereas Bernie has never said that) Bernie Sanders, does not defend that only average citizens are the real people, but that their interests (i.e. those of workers, minorities, women, etc) are not being taken into account in politics and that must be changed. Of course, there can be left-wing populism too (e.g. Maduro), but Bernie does not belong to that trend at all. If he were to become president, he would take into account the interests of all Americans through a framework of social and legal justice, but not through a disenfranchisement of the legal or political rights of those who oppose his politics. Compare that with, for example, Venezuela’s Maduro, in which the very same constitution is designed to perpetuate his hold on power by disenfranchising large sections of the population who oppose his rule and whose political discourse consists exclusively on blaming all problems on foreign actors and traitors. There is huge difference between such an antidemocratic stance and Bernie Sanders’ politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1