If you find yourself defending a child molester, saying: “WE can’t be judged by OUR worst day”, you probably need to have your hard drives checked. https://t.co/JYvSApplIU
I lived in a socialist country and took Scientific Communism at a Soviet university. I worked in the Pravda building, for years. But I’m sure you know better
“If we expand the electorate to include highly uninformed, grossly immature people that almost no other society deems responsible enough to vote, it will be a boon to socialists” is quite the admission from Jacobin.
The “terror” comes from imagining people of the DSA ilk trying to manage the economy.. It’s like stepping in a 757 and seeing sheep in the pilot seats.
In fairness my siblings and I were all homeschooled and all we did was get full rides to college, write speeches for presidents, become senior admin officials and decorated war heroes while on the other hand Jennifer Welch has a podcast.
The socialist regards society much as a child regards supper: he notices with great precision who received the largest slice, while remaining curiously uninterested in who rose at dawn to bake the thing.
Socialists always imagine themselves at the table, never in the kitchen.
I will not let this equivocation pass. You present the trip as honest inquiry. It was nothing of the kind.
By your own account to Reuters, this was a visit "exclusively to the West Bank, with programming led by Palestinians." You designed it to hear one side, and then delivered a verdict, "genocide," "apartheid", as though it were discovered rather than decided before you boarded the plane. That is not investigation. It is confirmation.
You may say you have met hostages before. Fine. Then you knew there was another side, and chose not to hear from it on the trip where you rendered judgment. That is worse, not better. A man who wanted to know would have looked at all of it. A man who wanted a verdict looked only where he knew it waited.
And within hours of the roadblock, you fundraised on it, and said you're "more resolved" to run for president.
That's not a fact-finding mission. It's a campaign advertisement filmed at the site of a war.
Ayn Rand's villains seemed like cartoon caricatures when I was 16. Pretty unbelievable.
As an adult, I now realize they were the most realistic aspect of her writing. And of course it was. She was writing from experience, having grown up in the USSR.
Let's take you at your word, Congressman, and grant your version entirely. Now run the experiment in reverse.
Imagine terrorists slaughter 1,200 Americans on our soil. Now imagine a foreign politician, from an allied nation, decides your country's response is unjustified. He flies here on a "fact-finding" trip. He refuses to meet the survivors or the families of the hostages. Instead, he arranges an itinerary guided entirely by people sympathetic to the attackers, tours the area where the attack was planned, films himself, and then goes home to tell his country that America is committing apartheid and genocide.
What would you say to that man? Would you call it fact-finding? Or would you recognize it as a foreign politician using your nation's tragedy as a prop to advance his own political career?
Because that's the trip you took. You've said openly you're "more resolved" to run for president after it. You fundraised off the incident within hours. And your own account of the itinerary tells us what you went looking for.
Whatever happened at that roadblock, and if Americans were detained unlawfully, it should be investigated, doesn't erase the question you refuse to answer: what were you doing there, and who was it for?