This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
The thing is, if Friedman says something it is more often evidence of the opposite. I'd call him an idiot savant but he has no measurable skills to justify the "savant" part. Even by the piss poor standards of the NYT it is baffling to me he has managed to be in print for all these decades.
I think the only reason for this article is that leftists take him seriously because he usually supports their lefty theories of foreign policy. Even here in what they are complaining about him writing you can see that one article was highly critical of Bush and the other was deeply supportive of Obama. The guy is just a hack. I doubt he actually believed what he was saying either time.