Reads as "won the 3rd election in which he has participated". Your assumptions betray your own.
no, it does not read as that
He lost his 2nd election but won his 3rd election.
How else do you propose to word it? As far as I'm concerned anyone reading it differently is suffering from very obvious bias.
An important aspect of intellectual discourse is interpreting any ambiguities in the most favorable manner for the other party. Or alternatively, if the matter is relevant to the central point then requesting clarification.
Background: UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students." Outcome: These grants are likely in a temporary holding pattern until ucla settles the issue.
> UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students."
Weird in that the main victims here actually pro-Palestinian students and the main attacker got a plea deal just a few days ago:
it is not an excuse. They are a well represented community in USA and students felt not safe/had different political stance which was enough to push gov to act. How is it different from for instance BLM era with governments, media and democrats punishing some institutions and people that didnt want to say their slogan, were having opposing idea or even just didnt went to publicly bend the knee, ending whole careers a…
What precedent? When did the Biden administration pull funding from universities to control speech it didn't approve of?
democrats didn’t need as they controlled those institutions. they however did it to the police to punish them just like trump did to school. For education, It was their funding and they put in power the people that did the coercion, lied on their resume and instead of having the will to educate the students just pushed down their throats propaganda. if you were against BLM or even a bit vocal about the tactics and negative things they were doing your carrier / studies would have ended and violence was also physically ok.
why do you think no major company care about it anymore? why diversity HR teams or Sustainability teams are getting disbanded? why do we have “sydney sweeney has good jeans” ads now while we had overweight models during biden Era? we are living through a different propaganda era that the market decided to follow like the previous one just to bank on it.
You and the other replies focus too much on the Jewish community within the US. Support for Israel is very strong in the US, particularly among Republicans, because of the rise of Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals have ... religious reasons for supporting of Israel. They also strongly identify with Europe and people with European backgrounds. They have an inability to identify with Palestinians.
When it comes to the democratic parties loyalty to Israel I think it's mostly the work of AIPAC that is responsible.
There's some truth to this but it's also an anti-semitic trope. There are a whole bunch of Jewish people on the Left that don't support the current Israeli regime.
Whatever Trump personally feels, he is demonstrably acting in Israel's interests. Maybe they have him blackmailed through Epstein stuff, or maybe he supports Israel due to his family connections or bribes. It doesn't really matter, the end result is the same.
Agreed, but not what I asked.
You asked if the Trump administration is committed to the pro-Israel position. I think they are. There are many potential reasons this is the case, but whichever of them may be true the result is the same.
> completely forgotten More like the two things aren't even remotely in the same ballpark. Imagine if the US had surrounded Baghdad and intentionally starved the residents. And even that example still fails to account for some of the context.
Sorry? Do you not remember Fallujah?
You mean the siege where the US allowed 70k refugees to leave 10 days in, actively facilitated the entry of aid, and ultimately gave in to the political pressure to relent in slightly over a month? That Fallujah?
For the record I don't doubt for a second that the same people who protest against Israel now would also have been among those campaigning against the US at the time.
Public support for Israel is steadily falling; this poll was published just a couple of days ago https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-militar... and other G7 countries are moving to recognise Palestine. So will the administration's push to use pro-Israel reasons to censure and penalise the universities steadily get out of touch with what the public want and sympathise with?
Antisemitism is just an excuse for these actions against universities, it's a pretext. Not a particularly believable one anyway, but that doesn't seem to matter. The Trump administration is punishing institutions that disagree with it, or that it dislikes for some reason.
I don't agree, because these actions are part of a bigger pattern of Republicans trying to find ways to ban criticism of Israel. Anti-BDS laws are very popular with the Republican party apparatus and politicians, as well as with older Republican voters.
What precedent? When did the Biden administration pull funding from universities to control speech it didn't approve of?
democrats didn’t need as they controlled those institutions. they however did it to the police to punish them just like trump did to school. For education, It was their funding and they put in power the people that did the coercion, lied on their resume and instead of having the will to educate the students just pushed down their throats propaganda. if you were against BLM or even a bit vocal about the tactics and ne…
Democrats don't actually control those universities though. That's like saying Republicans control churches because churchgoers are more conservative on average. But we all know the Republican party isn't actually directing churches across the country, just as Democrats aren't directing universities.
So I don't see what kind of precedent was set as far as use of executive power goes. You're saying because BLM happened (which was under Trump BTW), that gives Trump the right now to control speech at universities?
I've never really understood the relationship between the US and Israel. The US gives Israel pretty much whatever it wants and in return the US gets ... nothing? Israel even (deliberately?) attacked a US ship during the 6 day war, with little (if any) consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident >While millions of American evangelical Christians have long been fervent supporters of the Jewish stat…
Those apocalyptic prophecies are a big part of it, yes. Many politicians are believers in those prophecies, and many more count on votes from those believers. There's also the whole "God's chosen people" stuff, and a lot of older people think Israel should be given a blank cheque due to WW2 stuff. And of course some of it comes from wealthy donors like Miriam Adelson, a desire to go overboard to distance themselves from the threat of being labelled an antisemite, a desire to paint themselves as more pro-Israel than the other party, etc.
You mean the siege where the US allowed 70k refugees to leave 10 days in, actively facilitated the entry of aid, and ultimately gave in to the political pressure to relent in slightly over a month? That Fallujah? For the record I don't doubt for a second that the same people who protest against Israel now would also have been among those campaigning against the US at the time.
Parts of that are true. Parts of it are a bedtime story to help Americans cope with the reality of what our nation did. EDIT: Recall that Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attacks.
Some people truly try to protest all the horrors of war on all sides, everywhere. Others try to make "Country X" sound worse than anybody else. I don't have your insight into who has what agenda.