I highly disagree with that. Obama is a lot more likeable than clinton, and even clinton polls far ahead of trump.
The media can be held accountable for not reporting unbiased facts or being too sensational or whatnot.
The killers themselves said they weren't part of the BLM movement, though the NYC cops killer said he was doing it for his black brothers. I think one of the cop killers had PTSD? I forgot the details.
Obama is not likable to majority of Americans who have had him for 8 years. Obama is pretty unpopular among the republicans, and I doubt most would even consider siding with him over Trump regardless of shit that Trump says. I think many undecided voters would also be against Obama because of BLM and out of support of cops, as I see many of my FB friends cry about how Obama has never given a speech about fallen cops like he does with fallen black people.
By whom? Other media outlets....? You see where I'm going with this, right?
That's rather debatable. Sanders handled that whole ordeal over a year ago with grace, because he knew what the situation was. But people flooding onto interstates and stopping traffic is ridiculous IMO. Not only is it dangerous for everyone involved, it also creates resentment. But hey, I'm not organizing their marches, so whatever.
Assuming the sources are correct, I've never noticed that Reagan was not popular in Europe. I mean, I'd get it if it were in Germany (since he did made some comments about the country's division when he's at the Berlin Wall), but if it's all of Europe, then I'd be surprised.
Which is sort-off understandable, especially the 2 bombings at a Wedding and a Hospital triggered an outrage. Not sure about the reasoning that he supports Israel causes them to dislike him, but that's nothing new, really.
But isn't Netanyahu being in power also a factor there? The leadership of Israel seems to have inched further and further right ever since the Likud-Yisrael merger. It really isn't simply a matter of Obama deciding to support Israel less just because. There are ideological differences there. At least, that's the perception I have. And then you have the whole circus with the GOP leadership inviting him to speak in front of congress and then blaming Obama for not doing it himself or some nonsense. It felt like Netanyahu had no issue inserting himself and Israel into American politics as a political football...which seemed sort of distasteful to me, idk.
By other people. I mean, I'd rather read an honest report than report that's geared towards me or a right wing or a liberal or a Christian.
I actually forgot, but I remember someone like @Drmke talking about Obama/US still supplying weapons to Israel. Palestinians/Muslims would not be happy if this is true.
I mean, I get that this has a lot of the same support that the civil rights movement had back then, but is that really an honest and fair analogy?
I don't think either side has ground to stand on as far as a superior claim and that isn't going to change with each generation. The reality is, the west established Israel and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Unless Trump has been calling for people to kill Muslims, I don't know how he could be held accountable for it... Are you actually being serious here?
The US supplying Israel has been happening for a long time ago, and it's something not even President Obama has control over (unless there's more to fiscal policy than I know of).
The president could potentially have a say as far as federal aid goes, but from my recollection, Israel receives at least half as much more in private funding as it does from the US government. It's also the only country that has such an arrangement, where US citizens can make tax-deductible donations to that directly fund the government. Congress has also forgiven many of the loans we've given to them on top of that.
Which is outrageous if you ask me. I've even read that PM Netanyahu wants the US to increase the budget.
In a way, yes. Though, the Civil Rights movement had a clear leader in MLK Jr, who advocated for nonviolence. I think they were organized and had structure, whereas BLM has no clear leader or structure. I think one of the reasons why BLM is seen negatively is because few people claim to be part of Black Lives Matter movement, but they act violently or inappropriately, like disrupting students at a library or whatnot. I'm not denying there are differences between the two, and the one thing in common they have is making sure blacks get fair and equal treatment, though BLM apparently does believe in All Lives Matter. However, I base this on shared FB pictures on FB, which either is untrue or does not paint complete picture (as I myself realized).
I don't know, I feel he can do something about it. But then again, it seems an overwhelming majority support Israel. I remember reading an article on Bardem and Cruz being criticized by Rivers and majority of the citizens for taking Palestine's side, and being forced to issue an apology letter. Here's a source I got from Googling "Javier Bardem Penelope Cruz Israel."
They are one of the West's closest allies in the region. Some would argue that they'd probably would have fallen and been invaded a long time ago if it wasn't for the military support put behind the notion that it should exist. They have had an incredible amount of support from the west as a result.
They're the strongest nation in ME due to support from the West. As well as pretty consistent immigration/networking as well as a decent tourist industry for obvious reasons.
... Don't you understand the reason why it is that they have such a military? The region has been in perpetual conflict for like 60 years and it's military is powerful bevause it has the muscle of the West behind it.
