YubNub Social YubNub Social
    Advanced Search
  • Login

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Jobs Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Jobs

NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
1 y

TRUMP’S TURN: Univision Town Hall Recap
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

TRUMP’S TURN: Univision Town Hall Recap

Last week, Vice President Kamala Harris attended a town hall hosted by Univision at Las Vegas, Nevada. Former President Donald Trump’s was scheduled earlier in the week but postponed due to potential impacts from Hurricane Milton. Trump’s town hall was rescheduled for tonight, at Univision headquarters in Doral. FL. There are contrasts in the town halls. In Harris’s case, she got fewer questions which on substance were simpler. Trump drew more substantive questions, as well as some which could well be considered hostile. It is also necessary to remember that this town hall was supposed to feature persons from battleground states. As with the Harris forum, there were people flown in from California and other non-swing states.  The first question of the night was on high prices and the cost of housing: First question of the Univision town hall is from Diana in Houston, TX, on high prices and the cost of living. pic.twitter.com/uo0PbBMHdI — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The first immigration question was about the deportation of farm workers. Trump suggests here that the initial focus may be on criminal migrants: When asked about hypothetically deporting farm workers, Trump makes clear that criminals are the priority, and emphasizes an orderly immigration system pic.twitter.com/MQkReTTSVv — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The next question is on housing and job creation: Next question is on housing and job creation: pic.twitter.com/N0QCiGhzx2 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Trump gets asked about the national debt, proposes growth as a solution to debt. He floats Elon Musk as Efficiency Czar. Next question is on the national debt: Growth as a solution to debt. @elonmusk to be made in charge of govt efficiency. Shoutout to Starship booster chopsticks grab. pic.twitter.com/8KaWWrktOS — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The next question is on immigration, and on the failed Senate bill. This “independent” from Chicagoland sure sounds like a Harris leaner: A question on the border, and the failed Senate bill: Trump focuses on the border. The question suggests Harris leaner. pic.twitter.com/Z90TNH9ZCY — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The Springfield “cats and dogs” question, from an Arizona voter. Trump gets the cats and dogs question. Strong response on Springfield. Tougher questions than what Harris got. pic.twitter.com/y7ooD94laS — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Here’s where the game is given away: They bring back a questioner from the Harris forum. His tone and question were much sharper to Trump than to Harris. Univision brings back the Tampa construction worker. His question to Kamala, in Spanish, was about hurricane response. To Trump, in English: J6, Covid, and administration dissenters. Doesn't strike me as very undecided. pic.twitter.com/IpBOMI8DNA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Another “swing voter” from Illinois, with a left-framed gun control question.  So much for "Hispanics from swing states". Two people from Illinois, along with two from California. This "undecided" with a left-framed gun control question. I told you so. https://t.co/cIXaz3KGRl pic.twitter.com/C1IOgUpCVG — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Florida Man with a climate change question. Good on Trump to pivot to the Green New Deal. Another non-swing state resident, with a climate change question. Good pivot to the Green New Deal. pic.twitter.com/D2u1q7DJfW — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The obligatory abortion question, couched as a wedge against Melania: Voter from North Carolina on whether Trump agrees with Melania on abortion: pic.twitter.com/szJVHhdDMk — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Another person traveling to both events: Carlos from Arizona asks Trump whether he has any regrets from his previous stint in The White House. Another double dipper: Carlos from Arizona, who asked Kamala what she'd do differently than Biden on the border, asking Trump to name a regret or learning opportunity. Trump's response: personnel. pic.twitter.com/vo0peTJmPn — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Eloy from Wisconsin asks Trump what steps he’d take in order to unite the nation. Eloy from Wisconsin asks Trump what steps he'd take to unite the nation. TRUMP: We are very divided. We were united. People had jobs, were doing great. Dems want men in women's sports and transgender operations on minors. Success will bring this country together. pic.twitter.com/xdOnrI0dzw — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 To end the town hall, the same final question from the same person that asked Kamala to name three positive attributes about their opponent. Kamala named 1 such attribute. Trump named 3. The last question, same questioner as in the Harris town hall: Name 3 virtues you acknowledge in Kamala Harris. TRUMP: That's the toughest question. She's done horrible damage to the country. BUT: 1. Ability to survive 2. Longtime friendships 3. Nice way about her pic.twitter.com/xLw86ae6kq — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 There were 13 audience questions for Trump to Kamala’s 10. Trump’s questions were sharper in comparison to Kamala’s. As was the case with Kamala’s town hall, anchor Enrique Acevedo maintained a hands-off approach, which allowed the candidates to engage the audience directly. Per reports, Trump met with attendees after the conclusion of the event.  Might this event move the needle for Hispanics with Trump? It’s hard to say definitively, but it can’t hurt any time Trump has a mic and is in front of a crowd. Media strategies are going to get very interesting over the next three weeks.  
Like
Comment
Share
RedState Feed
RedState Feed
1 y

U.S Strikes Houthi Installations in Yemen With Stateside-Based B-2 Bombers
Favicon 
redstate.com

U.S Strikes Houthi Installations in Yemen With Stateside-Based B-2 Bombers

U.S Strikes Houthi Installations in Yemen With Stateside-Based B-2 Bombers
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
1 y

Bret Baier Ends Harris Interview After 26 Minutes After Four of Her Handlers Wave Their Hands At Him to Make it Stop
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Bret Baier Ends Harris Interview After 26 Minutes After Four of Her Handlers Wave Their Hands At Him to Make it Stop

Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris faced a more challenging interview than she’s used to on Fox News’ “Special Report” Wednesday evening, resulting in her handlers […]
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
1 y

Zelenskyy presents his ‘Victory Plan’
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Zelenskyy presents his ‘Victory Plan’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made public his “Victory Plan” on Wednesday; a plan that outlines steps Zelenskyy believes Ukraine and its Western allies should take in order to end the war…
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
1 y

The Blob Blames Its Victims
Favicon 
yubnub.news

The Blob Blames Its Victims

One of the symptoms of working in Washington, D.C. is the tendency to believe one’s own press releases. That is especially the case in foreign policy. Members of the infamous blob, from the president…
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
1 y

The Forgotten War that Made America
Favicon 
yubnub.news

The Forgotten War that Made America

“Any understanding of this nation has to be based on an understanding of the Civil War,” the late historian Shelby Foote observed. It “defined us as what we are, and it opened us up to what we became.”…
Like
Comment
Share
Science Explorer
Science Explorer
1 y

Your IQ in High School Can Predict Your Alcohol Use Later in Life
Favicon 
sciencealert.com

Your IQ in High School Can Predict Your Alcohol Use Later in Life

Wait, what?
Like
Comment
Share
Science Explorer
Science Explorer
1 y

Human Babies Have a 1:1 Sex Ratio, Unlike Many Animals. But Why?
Favicon 
sciencealert.com

Human Babies Have a 1:1 Sex Ratio, Unlike Many Animals. But Why?

Scientists are unraveling the mystery.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

The Blob Blames Its Victims
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

The Blob Blames Its Victims

Foreign Affairs The Blob Blames Its Victims Why aren’t the wretched of the earth grateful for the attentions of the war machine? Credit: image via Shutterstock One of the symptoms of working in Washington, D.C. is the tendency to believe one’s own press releases. That is especially the case in foreign policy. Members of the infamous blob, from the president on down, are convinced of their own virtue and indispensability. As President Joe Biden infamously declared a couple months ago, he was busy “running the world.” He is only following precedent. Although as a candidate George W. Bush called for a “humble foreign policy,” President George W. Bush sought to transform the Middle East and Central Asia. President Barack Obama imagined he could liberate Libya and Syria. Even President Donald Trump, despite challenging the blobby status quo in Afghanistan and Europe, wanted Uncle Sam to play the heavy in the Middle East. Biden believes he can do it all, managing Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Equally ambitious are most of the apparatchiks and factotums who fill Washington. Their sanctimony tends to match their arrogance. For instance, Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations was recently shocked, even scandalized, to discover that Palestinians are not fans of Washington. Who knew? Abrams, a card-carrying blob member, criticized Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for telling the Turkish parliament, “America is the plague, and the plague is America.” Worse, Abrams complained, the U.S. was nevertheless providing financial aid to the victims of its policies. The State Department recently announced another $404 million in humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere. The indignity!  The latter could be seen as a minor down payment of blood money by Washington after decades of backing Israeli occupation and military policy, and especially Israel’s Gaza war over the last year. Not by Abrams, though; he was, well, outraged: “Perhaps it is too much, in the rough and tumble of international politics, to ask for or expect gratitude. But it is more than a little surprising to see the leader of the Palestinians say ‘America is the plague, and the plague is America’.” How could any serious person be surprised at Palestinian criticism of Washington’s hostile policies?  There are plenty of analysts like Abrams, prepared to defend treating Palestinians as something less than human. (Actually, a lot less than human.) Yet the only rational response by those who suffer the consequences—living in territories that amount to war zones, open-air prisons, and militarized apartheid states—is anger against their oppressors and its main foreign backer. Washington’s willingness to provide buckets of cash to slightly ease people’s suffering isn’t going to change their view of Israel or America. Nor is this just a Palestinian issue. Imagine you are a Yemeni, who suffered from years of attacks by Saudis and Emiratis dropping U.S.-supplied munitions from U.S.-supplied aircraft. Or you are a Bahraini democracy advocate imprisoned by the dictatorial Sunni monarchy ostentatiously backed by Saudi troops and implicitly supported by Washington.  You might be an Iraqi—a Sunni whose relatives were murdered by Shiite militiamen, a Shiite bombed by al-Qaeda in Iraq, an Assyrian Christian driven abroad by jihadists, or a Yazidi turned into a sex slave by ISIS—after the Dubya administration went to war on a lie and blew up your country. Or a rural Afghan Muslim whose relatives were killed by forces of a local warlord or distant national government backed by the American military. Or an Egyptian, whether Muslim Brotherhood member or democracy activist, imprisoned by the U.S.-subsidized al-Sisi government. Or a Libyan whose family died in the low-grade regime change war fomented by the U.S. and European NATO members in the name of humanitarianism. Go back a few more years. Perhaps you are a Vietnamese who lost his or her family to bombing, battle, or other causes during America’s lengthy intervention. Or an Iranian tortured by SAVAK agents under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, empowered by a U.S.-backed coup. Or a Chilean imprisoned after Augusto Pinochet’s putsch, welcomed by Washington. Or a Bengali killed by the Pakistani military when the American government “tilted” toward Islamabad during its 1971 war with India. Or a regime critic who languished in prison under the U.S.-friendly Somoza dictatorship. Or—the list goes on and on. Of course, one can argue that Washington’s policy was justified in every case. Sometimes hard decisions must be made. The Second World War was perhaps the most dramatic example of choosing an evil, the Soviet Union, over a greater evil, Nazi Germany. Washington feared hostile domination of Eurasia. Adolf Hitler was more aggressive and unhinged than Joseph Stalin, pursuing a horrific policy of Jewish genocide. Although Stalin’s murder toll was prodigious, Hitler was far more dangerous to people in other nations. But rarely is the case for evil so clear. In fact, there often is no need to choose between evils. Doing so is more likely to harm Americans than standing aloof, dealing with awful regimes when necessary without officially backing or implicitly endorsing them. Terrorism demonstrates that blowback is common, perhaps inevitable, as victims of U.S. foreign policy strike civilians out of weakness in retaliation for American military and political actions against entire nations and peoples out of strength. Why, then, shouldn’t those victimized by America view it as a plague? It doesn’t matter how policymakers view themselves or what they intend to achieve. Or that most Americans are blissfully unaware of what Washington does in their name and the sometimes devastating impact of its actions on others. Intentions don’t matter to those impoverished, imprisoned, or killed. Results do. And those results can be terrible. As the Palestinians learned, again and again. Yet Abrams blames the victims. He is outraged not at their mistreatment, but at their anger over their mistreatment. Such is the view of the blob: Why should we, the masters of earth and embodiment of all that is good, have to put up with others’ ingratitude? Wrote Abrams, “Abbas should not get away with this. A retraction and apology should be demanded, and until it is received not one more dime should move. No self-respecting country should permit itself to be treated this way. We are happily past the ages when such comments led to duels among men or wars among nations. But paying for such insults ought to be out of the question.” Actually, no “self-respecting” government should do what Washington does so often, and no “self-respecting” people should allow their government to behave so disgracefully. There is a much better answer than demanding an apology. Washington should change its policy and stop terrorizing others and backing those who do the same. Innocent foreigners should no longer pay the price of American foreign policy. Many U.S. officials imagine themselves to be exempt from original sin and acting on behalf of all humanity. Many Americans view their country as being inherently righteous and virtuous, forgetting that Washington is run by human beings, among the nation’s most ambitious, selfish, and ruthless. The result is often ugly, a virtual “plague” on the rest of the world. Americans should stop turning people into victims rather than, like Elliott Abrams, demanding that others apologize for their victimhood. The post The Blob Blames Its Victims appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

The Forgotten War that Made America
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

The Forgotten War that Made America

Books The Forgotten War that Made America The overlooked Creek War set the tone for America to come. Credit: image via Shutterstock “Any understanding of this nation has to be based on an understanding of the Civil War,” the late historian Shelby Foote observed. It “defined us as what we are, and it opened us up to what we became.” The American Civil War set the United States on the path to becoming a global force, but another clash, long forgotten, enabled America to become a continental power.  The Creek War is little known to most Americans today. In some respects, this is unsurprising. The conflict lasted a little more than a year and unfolded against the backdrop of another overlooked conflagration, the War of 1812. Yet, the war was key to forging both the American character and the United States itself. What began as an internecine struggle between Creek Indians made America what it is today. “No other Indian conflict in our nation’s history so changed the complexion of American society as the Creek War,” the author Peter Cozzens observes in his new book, A Brutal Reckoning: Andrew Jackson, the Creek Indians, and the Epic War for the American South. It was, he notes, “the most pitiless clash between American Indians and whites in U.S. history.”  The Creek Confederacy’s loss ensured the end of their way of life. And the victory by U.S. forces, led by future president Andrew Jackson, gifted the United States with 22 million acres of land in Alabama and Georgia. American policymakers at the dawn of the Republic confronted a security environment that is hard to imagine today. The United States as we now know it didn’t exist. The French, Spanish, and British had territorial and commercial holdings on the continent, with the latter two even possessing sizable military garrisons. By contrast, the United States didn’t possess a standing army and its new navy was a hodgepodge of ships. Many doubted whether the U.S., with its revolutionary form of government, would endure. Indeed, many of the European courts were betting otherwise. As President, Thomas Jefferson singled out his greatest national security concern. “There is on the globe a single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy,” he wrote. “It is New Orleans.” The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 eased Jefferson’s concerns about foreign influence, but it didn’t eliminate them. Jefferson believed that America’s future lay in the West, but he also recognized the need to have “defense in depth” against European powers.  As former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick observed in his book America in the World: “Security required settlement.” And that settlement was certain to be bloody.  The war began amongst the Creeks themselves.  The Creeks, Cozzens points out, “Lived in a land of abundance,” with vast territorial holdings that were, the American Indian agent Caleb Swan noted in 1791, “remarkably healthy.” The country, Swan wrote, “must become a most delectable part of the United States…and one day or other be the seat of manufacturers and commerce.” The Creeks were aware that their lands were coveted by foreigners. Indeed, their own kingdom stood in what was the center of a struggle for empire between Great Britain, Spain and France, at one point comprising half of the present-day Deep South. They tried to play the three powers off one another.  Yet ultimately, the Creek policy of studied neutrality was doomed to fail. America was going to be conquered and settled, either by one of the European nations or by the settlers themselves. Over time, the British gained an advantage with the Creeks. The French were unable to compete economically, the Spanish empire was already in the throes of a centuries-long decay, and the British had steadily expanded trade with the Creeks. After the American Revolution, Georgia’s population more than doubled, leading to an influx of settlers at the veritable heart of the Creek nation. A recent war with the Choctaws, a proxy of the French, had gone poorly. Fissures soon developed in Creek society, with the rise of pro-American and pro-British factions. Further complicating matters, the Creeks had decentralized rule—a boon for their enemies. “Young Creek warriors bridled at their elders’ passivity,” Cozzens notes. The Creeks were both divided and adrift when the Shawnee leader Tecumseh, and his brother Tenskwatawa, known as the Prophet, attended the annual Creek council in 1811 in present-day Alabama. Both Shawnee men preached war against the Americans, converting a number of Creek religious leaders in the process. They would soon become known as the “Red Sticks” Their opponents were known as the “White Sticks,” and largely hailed from the Lower Creeks, who tended to trade more with the Americans. The two were soon at war. The Red Sticks began attacking their opponents, launching the first major offensive in July 1813. The War of 1812 raged in the backdrop, with the U.S. and Great Britain first coming to blows a year before. The Red Sticks cast their lot with the British. On August 30, 1813, Red Stick chiefs Peter McQueen and William Weatherford led an attack on Fort Mims, 50 miles north of Mobile. A slave had told the fort’s commander, Dixon Bailey, that he had seen the Red Sticks gathering. However, the disbelieving Bailey had the man whipped as a liar. Accordingly, the gates were open when 1,000 of the Sticks attacked. Bailey was among the first to fall. Nearly all of the fort’s inhabitants were slaughtered—no fewer than 553 men, women and children, and many in the most brutal fashion imaginable. According to one account: “the children were seized by the legs and killed by battering their heads against the stockading, the women were scalped, and those who were pregnant were opened while they were alive, and the embryo infants let out of the womb.” What became known as the Fort Mims Massacre drew national outrage, briefly focusing popular attention away from commensurate battles against the British. The massacre had another important side effect: it brought Andrew Jackson into battle against the Red Sticks. Jackson, Cozzens notes, “provides a stunning lesson in how the unwavering will of one man could set the course of a crucial era of American history and almost single-handedly win what was arguably the most consequential Indian war in U.S. history.”  Born into poverty in 1767 in the Carolinas (precisely which Carolina is still a matter of debate), Jackson had a rough early life. His father died before he was born, and both of his brothers and his mother would die during the American Revolution. Nonetheless, Jackson reached great heights, becoming a prosperous attorney and landowner, as well as a judge and, briefly, a member of Congress. Jackson represented a new breed of American: self-educated, without a trace of blue blood, and born on the treacherous frontier, far from the sanctity of New York, Philadelphia and the remnants of the “Old World.” An accomplished duelist with a fierce temper and an undying hatred for the British, Thomas Jefferson considered Jackson a most “dangerous man.” Indeed, Jackson was recovering from a wound suffered during a gunfight on Nashville’s city streets when word of Fort Mims reached him. His arm still in a sling, Jackson hurried south. In November, Jackson destroyed the village of Tallushatchee, and a week later, won a battle at Talladega, killing an estimated one-third of the assembled Red Sticks. But the decisive engagement came at Horseshoe Bend, a formidable defensive coastal encampment that Jackson took at great cost. “After that, it was simply a matter of using terror—burning villages, destroying crops—until the Indians had decided that they had had enough,” Johnson notes. Weatherford, known as Red Eagle, surrendered to Jackson on April 14, 1814, and by August the war against the Red Sticks was over. The Creek War was a proving ground for the men who built America in the mid-nineteenth century. As Paul Johnson observed, the “men who were later to expand the United States into Texas and beyond were bloodied in the Creek War.” Jackson’s onslaught against the Red Sticks won him both a promotion and subsequent command during the Battle of New Orleans, where his victory against the British made him a national icon, paving the path to the presidency. Men who served under Jackson, such as Sam Houston and Davy Crockett, would themselves become national figures. The men who fought Tecumseh up north would also gain fame, with William Henry Harrison becoming the ninth president of the United States, and Richard M. Johnson, allegedly the man who killed Tecumseh, becoming a senator and vice president.  The Creek War birthed no fewer than a dozen political careers. But more importantly it enabled the nation’s rise. The massive amounts of land taken from the Creek put the U.S. on the path to becoming a continental power and set the stage for the wars, both against Mexico and ourselves, that followed. The Civil War may have been the “crossroads of our being” as Shelby Foote put it, but that road was paved decades prior in a brief and bloody conflict in America’s south. The post The Forgotten War that Made America appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 7833 out of 56669
  • 7829
  • 7830
  • 7831
  • 7832
  • 7833
  • 7834
  • 7835
  • 7836
  • 7837
  • 7838
  • 7839
  • 7840
  • 7841
  • 7842
  • 7843
  • 7844
  • 7845
  • 7846
  • 7847
  • 7848

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund