Not being able to afford everything you want just as you're starting out doesn't mean everything sucks. There are always trade-offs, and the idea that young people shouldn't have to make any is unrealistic. Deciding what's important and prioritizing your budget accordingly is an important lesson
This was prompted by an article about a son of privilege saying that our country is failing because he can't buy a house at 24 and his friends graduated recently and can't find a job. None of that is new. All of it is made worse by Trump. Yet he's calling to shut down immigration
It's one thing to be concerned about people unable to afford safe housing, or sufficient food. It's another to think you're being failed by society because you can't buy a house at 25 and live an influencer lifestyle.
It's normal for twentysomethings to live in undesirable housing, often with roommates. It's normal for people just getting started to have to budget severely. The idea that everyone should be able to live in a dream apt, alone, eating out all the time, and going on fancy vacations is not realistic.
All excellent. I especially agree with the over-focus on Holocaust education. It felt like all I learned about, and it got so much more emphasis than life today and Jewish joy. I want my daughter to think of Simchat Torah and Shabbat when she thinks of her Jewishness, not just our historical pain.
But wouldn't everyone be seeing the same price hikes they're seeing now, just before the midterms? I would expect a repeat of everyone freaking out about the price hikes right before e-day, which would benefit Dems.
I met Terry Pratchett once. I had knit him a pair of socks, basically handed them over and ran away. I think he signed my book, I honestly can't remember. I hope he liked them!
You're accusing Schumer of prioritizing Israel over the US in contravention of his oath of office...because he didn't vote for Mamdani. Withholding his vote from his party's mayoral nominee is not a failure to "support and defend the Constitution" and "faithfully discharge the duties of the office."
I'm very frustrated by the idea that Mamdani is either a dyed in the wool antisemite out for Jewish blood, or a perfect innocent without a single thought tinged by bias. There's a lot of room in the middle for people to be reasonably concerned about.
Yes, but he's never going to say that directly, and he's never going to say what the US should do if Jews are threatened by such a state.
The ridiculous thought experiment: dissolve Israel because Israelis discriminate --> Palestinian state discriminates against Jews --> do it all over again?
I don't even know if he's calling for the dissolution of Israel! He says he won't recognize its right to exist, but what that means, I don't know. Hence the confusion in all these conversations.
If Palestine is established as an Islamic nation and enforces gender apartheid and oppression of non-Muslims, is Mamdani going to call for its dissolution?
If a Palestinian state gets created and the occupation ends, and Israeli citizens of all ethnicities and religions have equal rights, has Israel cured the problem? Or is partition not permissible? If not, why not?
When you call out inequality, what qualifies? Gender apartheid? Oppression of immigrants or queer people? Is there any country that has a clean bill of morality?
If you decide Pakistan falls short, does it get reabsorbed by India? What about Bangladesh? If all countries suck, then what?
