Zuzak

but rewatching the presidential debates of 2000, it's really hard to find a place where Bush and Gore actually differ on foreign policy.

I distinctly remember seeing a clip from those debates where Gore took a more interventionist position, but idk if I could find it. It's a real thing though, it's a big part of why Bush was all like, "This is not about nation-building" and stuff like that at the start.

It only has to work long enough for them to die off and they're all like 90, they've probably got enough "then they came for's" ahead of them to be fine.

It's all about having common enemies, imo, plus similar cultural signifiers. They're both in the "blue tribe" and whatever views someone might have about "political" things like war, it's just a difference of opinion.

What I mean by "political" is that most people have a certain set of values that they'll say, "shouldn't even be political," and you can generally tell almost everything about a person's politics by what they put in that category. The neolibs and radlibs place things like LGBT rights in that category, but slaughtering a bunch of foreigners, well, that's a complicated foreign policy debate where reasonable people can disagree. Plus, I mean, they're radlibs, so they're probably gonna see eye-to-eye with neolibs on Ukraine, for example.

The Germans learned a lot about how to evade being held responsible for committing genocide, and nothing else.

Literally the first line of the article:

Coverage of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza is mostly dominated by talk of weapons.

It goes on to address this perspective and make an argument why troops are important. Did you actually read it before coming to that conclusion?

Fortunately, there is a cure:

The whole breakdown in relations between the US and Iran really started with the US allowing the shah to flee to America (which even fucking warned against), leading the Iranian revolutionaries conclude the US was planning to reinstate him (like they did before!), and they responded by taking hostages at the US embassy.

I've brought this up to people before, and gotten the response, "The shah was ill and came to the US for treatment, it was a humanitarian decision, the Iranians were just being paranoid."

Yet another reason to hate Jimmy Carter.

The further they push, the more regular people will recognize it as insane.

Is this confirmed true?

Is that a yes or a no to whether a bunch of Holocaust scholars are engaging in a conspiracy to fabricate evidence? Just need one word. I would also accept maybe.

Could you do me a favor a clearly state whether you believe the historians working with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum are knowingly lying and fabricating evidence regarding the Holocaust? And if so, would you mind giving me your best guess as to why Holocaust scholars are engaging in this conspiracy?

No, because I do not read Ukrainian, and I have not personally reviewed the primary sources. There are people who do speak Ukrainian and have extensively studied these sources, such as the people who work at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Could you do me a favor a clearly state whether you believe the historians working with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum are knowingly lying and fabricating evidence regarding the Holocaust? And if so, would you mind giving me your best guess as to why Holocaust scholars are engaging in this conspiracy?