Watch the full conversation here: https://youtube.com/live/OVl9FGe8fno?feature=shareChris, Marcelina, and Max join Katie to discuss the historic UAW strike. ...
Was what they did to Libya not purposefully cruel?
Not sure what this is about
Are mandatory minimums and three strike laws not purposefully cruel?
Yes, and I'd imagine there's much more support for this type of law amongst Republicans then Democrats. I'd imagine you're going to point out the '94 crime bill or something and Democratic support. Well, understand I'm not a Democrat apologist, I don't think they are without blame or do no wrong, they are just not as bad as Republicans.
is mass deportation not purposefully cruel? Are sanctions on Venezuela not purposefully cruel?
Yes, do you think Republicans would not do these things? And much worse? I'm not saying Democrats are good.
Google how Gaddafi died and then what Hillary had to say about it, for one.
But what happened to the country was that it was bombed back to the stone age and what was once one of the better countries in Africa for the poor became one that has open air slave markets.
Ah ok, I don't defend that. I am not a Hillary apologist, I don't support U.S. colonialism. I simply think Republicans are worse for the well being of people that live in the U.S. than Democrats are. All else being equal, I prefer the party not actively trying to erase my existence. And I think organizing to make real change is less risky under Democrats (conservatives) than Republicans (fascists).
When it comes to international relations, I don't believe morality, cruelty, etc are really part of the calculation. It's all about power.
I told you to look up Saddam's cause of death and Hillary's commentary on it for a reason. They weren't there for the sake of satisfying their personal cruelty, but that sure didn't stop them.
Virtually no policy is motivated by personal cruelty, foreign or domestic, all of it is about power. Rarely, a politician has a genuine personal bone to pick with someone they legislate against (see McCain vs Vietnam, I suppose), but generally these things should be analyzed on the level of material interests.
Votes are earned.
Not sure what this is about
Are mandatory minimums and three strike laws not purposefully cruel?
Yes, and I'd imagine there's much more support for this type of law amongst Republicans then Democrats. I'd imagine you're going to point out the '94 crime bill or something and Democratic support. Well, understand I'm not a Democrat apologist, I don't think they are without blame or do no wrong, they are just not as bad as Republicans.
Yes, do you think Republicans would not do these things? And much worse? I'm not saying Democrats are good.
Google how Gaddafi died and then what Hillary had to say about it, for one.
But what happened to the country was that it was bombed back to the stone age and what was once one of the better countries in Africa for the poor became one that has open air slave markets.
Ah ok, I don't defend that. I am not a Hillary apologist, I don't support U.S. colonialism. I simply think Republicans are worse for the well being of people that live in the U.S. than Democrats are. All else being equal, I prefer the party not actively trying to erase my existence. And I think organizing to make real change is less risky under Democrats (conservatives) than Republicans (fascists).
When it comes to international relations, I don't believe morality, cruelty, etc are really part of the calculation. It's all about power.
I told you to look up Saddam's cause of death and Hillary's commentary on it for a reason. They weren't there for the sake of satisfying their personal cruelty, but that sure didn't stop them.
Virtually no policy is motivated by personal cruelty, foreign or domestic, all of it is about power. Rarely, a politician has a genuine personal bone to pick with someone they legislate against (see McCain vs Vietnam, I suppose), but generally these things should be analyzed on the level of material interests.