Debeli_Perun

https://youtu.be/F8yV8xUorQ8

Basically this.

Maybe Art of the Deal, but only because somebody else wrote it.

That would make sense if Israelis today lived in economic desperation which they don't. Go watch the debate, it's very interesting.

In peace part. There's a lot of documents showing that the first wave of Jews coming to Palestine lived in peace with Palestinians, also a lot of them working together and forming trade unions together which was a problem for Jewish elite. It's presented in the book.

That's actually not true. There's a book called Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappe. Look it up, there's a chapter precisely about that. He brought the receipts.

There's a Chris Hedges - Sam Harris debate on YouTube you can watch in which Hedges brilliantly argues that desperate economic conditions actually lead people to turn to religious fanaticism as opposed to Sam Harris who argued that religion is fanaticism in itself.

But, but, but she's a conservative and family's in the first place for them.

I'll just leave this here

If idiot car journalists maybe didn't test regular, everyday non SUV cars on test tracks and then criticize them for not stiff enough suspension, not precise enough steering, not supportive enough seats etc, maybe SUVs wouldn't be the best selling vehicles. Regular people want comfy cars for everyday use and non SUV cars are increasingly not that. Also non SUV cars are significantly lower than 10, 20 or 30 years ago so much so that clearing a curb is problem. I have an Opel hatchback (Astra), out of 10 times approximately 3-4 times I scrape a curb because the car is too low. GTFO

I had an older (4 generations older) Astra, almost never scraped a curb. Also it was much comfier.

What are you talking about? If he's reign as a PM was so successful for average people the massacres of 2010 and 2015 would not have happened. The guy was a neoliberal and a war criminal. My original point was Starmer is not a red, he's a slightly less blue than Tories. That's a fact. Labour party should support workers, he's supporting Blairism.

And this is the next to last paragraph from the article:

In spite of the nigh-on dictatorial demeanor of Blair himself, perhaps the defining characteristic of Blairism in the final analysis is therefore just how extravagantly cowardly and work-shy it was when it came to changing the course of British social and political history. In this literal sense, as well as the more general one, Blairism hardly worked at all. It understood government largely in terms of short-term presentation, and saw money as a pure social good instead of a means of reorganizing society in ways that would last.

You can downvote all you want, it only shows you didn't read the whole article. I would argue lying to British public that Iraq has WMDs and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis pretty much outweighs anything good he has done. But whatever.

Maybe read the whole article.