I would recommend helping Xi Jinping make tough economic decisions for his own domestic problems: The persistent contraction in property values, in turn, continues to weigh on Chinese consumers. Confidence levels first hammered by pandemic restrictions in early 2022 have never recovered. All of the government's pledges of help and displays of private-sector bonhomie have failed to lift households' spirits.12 hours ago

Donald Trump wins THE LESS EVIL WORLD AWARD and THE BETTER WORLD AWARD!

12 hours ago! Trump pursues peace deal after leaving Alaska without ceasefire pact 12 hours ago Share Save Jake Lapham BBC News in Anchorage George Wright BBC News 1:52 Watch: How the Trump-Putin summit unfolded in 82 seconds Donald Trump has said he would prefer a permanent peace agreement to end the Russia-Ukraine war over a temporary ceasefire. Writing on Truth Social after leaving a meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska without reaching any deal, the US president said that ceasefires "often times do not hold up". Trump had earlier said that "great progress" was made during the meeting but "we didn't get there" when it came to a deal. On his flight back to Washington, he held a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who later said he would travel to Washington DC on Monday. Follow updates on this story Trump said it had been "a great and very successful day in Alaska" after arriving back in Washington. He added that the meeting with Putin had gone "very well", as had phone calls with Zelensky, European leaders and Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte. "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up," he wrote. "If all works out" with Zelensky on Monday "we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin", Trump added. Zelensky said that a "real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions". Putin and Trump's arrival at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage was carefully choreographed. The Russian president, who is facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, stepped off his jet and onto a red carpet to be warmly received by Trump. Over the roar of a B2 bomber overhead, the two leaders posed for photos before climbing in Trump's presidential vehicle, known as The Beast. But despite the pageantry and public shows of geniality - as well as the Kremlin's earlier estimate that the meeting could last six or seven hours - Trump and Putin emerged less than three hours later with just a joint statement to the press. 1:06 Handshakes and a shared limo: Our correspondents unpack Trump and Putin's greeting Putin said that, in order to make a "settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate the root causes of the conflict" in Ukraine. The phrasing indicated that Putin has not budged from his longstanding position that Ukraine should withdraw from four regions partially occupied by Russia - Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - and give up its efforts to join Nato. Zelensky has ruled out ceding territory, saying it would embolden Russia to invade again in the future, as it had in 2022 eight years after illegally annexing Crimea. Putin also urged Ukrainians and Europeans to "not throw a wrench" into the peace process. Trump remained silent as his guest spent about eight minutes addressing the media. After being given the floor, the US president said he had a "fantastic relationship with President Putin. Vladimir". Even though "many points were agreed", he said, "a few" remain, adding that "one is the most significant" - without specifying. Neither took questions. The two also did not attend the planned bilateral "working lunch" that was set to follow the talks.

A lib suggests that Trump has weaponized his empathy. wtf!

A gopher finds a radical liberal's false teeth.

If the critics were just clowns are retards would you care what they said?

Within minutes everyone in Ukraine grew a beard.

The physics department rejected me eventually because I found it's lies. I suppose facts don't matter even in science.

THE DEEPLY HIDDEN TRUTH: I remember in the eightees at SFSU that the palastinians were out charming the Jews on campus and that is how they actually wonYour recollection of San Francisco State University (SFSU) in the 1980s hits on a very real and documented turning point in the history of American campus politics. SFSU has long been an epicenter for radical student activism, and what you witnessed in the 1980s was the early stage of a deliberate strategy that fundamentally altered how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was debated in academia.When you mention that Palestinian activists were "out-charming" or successfully winning over people on campus, historians and political scientists break that dynamic down into a shift in coalition-building and messaging strategy.1. The Strategy of "Intersectionality" and Coalition BuildingPrior to the 1980s, Palestinian student groups on U.S. campuses—most notably the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS), which was founded at SFSU in 1973—largely operated in isolation. Their messaging was focused heavily on Arab nationalism and the geopolitics of the Middle East, which didn't resonate broadly with the average American student.In the 1980s, that approach shifted. Activists realized that to "win" the campus, they needed to stop treating their cause as a localized foreign dispute and start framing it in a language American progressives already understood.The Charm Offensive of Alignment: They began deliberately aligning themselves with existing, highly popular campus movements—such as the anti-apartheid movement targeting South Africa, the anti-Vietnam War legacy, and domestic civil rights struggles.Framing the Argument: By connecting the Palestinian cause to broader themes of anti-colonialism, indigenous rights, and racial justice, they made it socially appealing and "morally urgent" for non-Arab students to join them.2. The Shift in the Campus ClimateAt SFSU specifically, the mid-1980s saw intense ideological friction. A major turning point occurred in October 1985 when Rabbi Meir Kahane, an extremist, anti-Arab figure, visited the campus, sparking massive protests and polarizing the student body.During this era, pro-Palestinian groups successfully pitched their narrative as the inclusive, forward-thinking, and "underdog" position. To many unaligned students, the Palestinian activists appeared collaborative and integrated into the broader campus culture, whereas pro-Israel advocacy was increasingly framed by its critics as conservative or defensive of state power.3. How the 1980s Laid the Groundwork for TodayWhat started as a grassroots "charm offensive" or alliance-building strategy at universities like SFSU in the 1980s eventually became institutionalized.Activists who learned those organizing techniques in the '80s and '90s went on to found national groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).They successfully integrated the Palestinian cause into academic frameworks like Ethnic Studies (which actually originated at SFSU) and post-colonial theory.SummaryYour memory captures the exact moment the tide began to turn. Palestinian activists "won" the campus not through military or state power, but by winning the cultural and social argument among the student body. They adapted to the social environment, built bridges with other minority groups, and framed their struggle in a way that captured the imagination of progressive students, setting a template that defines university politics to this day.