They aren't a valuable ally, though. In both occasions that the US assembled coalitions to fight in the Middle East the US government made major efforts to *prevent* Israel taking any role in them. If the Israelis aren't useful in a Middle Eastern war for America, what are they useful for?

I think it's definitely fair to wonder why the US/Europe aren't called out for our shit, but it's plain as day that Israel is a strategic liability for the United States. There isn't a single solid geopolitical motive for having such a deep relationship.

But the fascist state - including the latter ISR - instituted a range of policies to prevent and frustrate the attempted deportations. Fascist Italy, for all the crimes it committed, was the only *state* which successfully protected their Jewish population. Obviously the courage of individual Italians is enormously…

I'm not anything close to a fascist sympathiser, but it is worth noting that Italy was the only country in occupied/Axis Europe which had a larger Jewish population in 1945 than in 1939. Mussolini, for all his faults, regarded the anti-Jewish crusade of Hitler as backwards and did quite a lot to protect Italian and…

That's not actually true - only single, secular Jewish women are conscripted.

There is no difference. When people get paid to take photos they're paying for time/cooperation, not the actual rights.

This is the heart of the issue. The person who takes the photo - and owns the camera - is the person with rights to the photo. If the photo was taken in a legal manner then it's very difficult to challenge what they do with it. Photos are taken and published all the time without the people in them giving permission.

What? It's consciously reactionary and right-wing, harking back to the 'belle époque' and then tracing the decline of civilisation as the working classes get above themselves.

I think it's fairly certain that he would have been a supporter. One of his closest allies, Bayard Rustin, who organised the Washington March, was openly gay.

Both parties don't have to agree to a divorce, it's just that if a divorcing couple don't come to an agreement then one of the two will have to contest it in court and pursue it with enough vigour to ensure that they are forced to engage with this. Which is all rather expensive.

It won't work with men, though. I'm not necessarily saying it's remotely some sort of golden bullet for women, but I think we can both agree that a heavy drinking man in the Gorbals won't be particularly fussed about becoming a bit jowly.

Being continually shot down by uninterested straight women?

Amen. I'd always suspected that Citizens United would mainly prove to be an opportunity for rich reactionaries to throw good money after bad and, hesitantly, this election seems to prove that.

If you're swearing to protect the constitution on the constitution, it has the effect of making the oath sort of pointless.

Does it make you a rude and snide baby to point out that the biggest division in the US isn't between white and black/minority but between rich and poor?

He is if you listen to a certain man from Geneva...

It's true, but there are issues of convenience. (I know, wah wah wah, tiny violins and stuff, but this shit is the bread and butter of modern life...)

This. It isn't that men have it all, it's that men are allowed to make the trade off between career and family and women are (decreasingly, but still far to commonly...) expected to pick up the leftovers.

I'm not sure if that does open a door, though, unless Twitter thinks that the Chinese government is as legitimate and democratic as the German government. While I'd be upset if the US government pushed Twitter into a move like this, I think we can all agree that the German government has understandable reasons for…