Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I paid for police response with property taxes. I paid a higher property tax rate than the average homeowner paid for the same police service within the community. I wasn't upset by paying more at the time. I'm not upset by paying higher property taxes today.

This is getting silly. We've been through this many times. You believe that your efforts are exemplary and I think not. It's amazing that the police respond to security alarms, because they shouldn't have to do it. In a city the size of Minneapolis, the annual cost to the taxpayers for that one service to the business community is in the $10Million range or higher. Several go off every night, and resources have to be available to respond that are not needed elsewhere. Worse, they have to stand-by until the security service or business owner tells them they're done. If they said no, the security industry would fold like a cheap suit.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

You've made my larger point, actually. No one dares touch the real Third Rail--our ongoing investment in the national security state. It's political kryptonite for any serious candidate--for now. Still, it's the vampire squid sucking the blood and marrow out of our economy.

Yes, since the Day of Infamy, Dec.7, 1941. The birthday of our MIC. And at first, it regenerated our Depression economy; so it can work that way. But many observers have felt that since then, the cure became worse than the disease. It is an addictive growth that once gave us life, and has since taken over our lives. We are the world's policeman, at least sometimes. And fear of another Pearl Harbor (or of another "another Pearl Harbor," 9-11) rules out any major reduction in the budget for very long.

Since Vietnam and the McGovern takeover of the Democratic Party, Democratic presidents have acted more carefully and sparingly. Hillary may be more trigger-happy than Carter, Clinton and Obama have been. On the other hand, since no major new USA military involvement is going to happen in any would-be Hillary term, I am hopeful that she'll continue the post-Vietnam tradition among Democratic presidents. But a reduction in the budget doesn't seem likely anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Blacks are voting for Hillary in staggering numbers. That's both for what they perceive as her person-to-person involvement, past policies, and current advocacy. So blacks obviously don't feel that the issues affecting them are only class and economic ones. The unarmed shootings of young black men, the rampant racial profiling, the percentage of blacks in prison and death row, the vast discrepancies in wealth between the races, all convince them that the battle for civil rights is not over, even though some African-Americans have done well.

So it's got to be both class and race. Both Bernie and Hillary understand both aspects very well. Middle aged and older black voters know Hillary and don't know Bernie, however. It may just be a habit; or name recognition. So, although whites may not trust Hillary much, blacks do. Bernie speaks in statistics and policies, while Hillary speaks in terms of experience. So blacks, maybe because Bill and Hillary have more "soul" than Professor Sanders, prefer Lady America-- at least now in the primaries.

Barring a near-miracle, we're going to need to go with Hillary. She's smart, and tough, and has a good heart. She has good policies, even though she has come late to some of them, and her foreign policy is probably the best for these times among all candidates. I don't know if I will vote for her. I'm tempted, but I remember the last time I voted for a Clinton for president. I was disappointed, and I haven't voted for a Democrat (or a Republican) since 1992. I didn't vote for Carter again the second time either. Democrats often let us down. So I don't know if I can give up my own habit of voting Left. But if I lived in a swing state, even one swinging blue like Virginia, I'd have to seriously consider voting for Hillary, even though I feel the Bern now.

Hillary is playing the politics of the past, Trump is trying to be the Fascist future, and poor Bernie is trying to be the decent future. Hillary is playing to the women and minorities that may get her elected, but also drive voters to Trump by the droves. Bernie has a message similar to Trump, but one with compassion and focus on getting more for the not-1%. I don't see anyone trying both at once and actually getting a coherent message out there.

Since is probably going to be Hillary v The Donald, I won't be surprised to see Trump the winner. I'm not sure how to react to that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, since the Day of Infamy, Dec.7, 1941. The birthday of our MIC. And at first, it regenerated our Depression economy; so it can work that way. But many observers have felt that since then, the cure became worse than the disease. It is an addictive growth that once gave us life, and has since taken over our lives. We are the world's policeman, at least sometimes. And fear of another Pearl Harbor (or of another "another Pearl Harbor," 9-11) rules out any major reduction in the budget for very long.Since Vietnam and the McGovern takeover of the Democratic Party, Democratic presidents have acted more carefully and sparingly. Hillary may be more trigger-happy than Carter, Clinton and Obama have been. On the other hand, since no major new USA military involvement is going to happen in any would-be Hillary term, I am hopeful that she'll continue the post-Vietnam tradition among Democratic presidents. But a reduction in the budget doesn't seem likely anytime soon.

Eric, much of what you point out is true as far as that goes...But I would add a much simpler--if not insidious--reason for our military adventurism around the world: the late Chalmers Johnson wrote one of the most prescient books foreshadowing the 9-11 attacks: Blowback. If only Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama--and Hillary Clinton--had all kept a copy on the bed stand. In the documentary Why We Fight, filmed in the wake of our misguided Global War on Terror, Johnson offered an easy explanation: "As long as war is this profitable, we will have more of it."

That's what any politician is up against if he or she ever hopes to rollback defense spending in any serious fashion. And anyone with the guts to close half our military bases, scrap aging nukes, etc., is probably courting a military coup. Oliver Stone in his fact-challenged film JFK all but suggested as much. No it's much easier to slash "entitlement spending." No nefarious and shadowy figures to lobby against that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary is playing the politics of the past, Trump is trying to be the Fascist future, and poor Bernie is trying to be the decent future. Hillary is playing to the women and minorities that may get her elected, but also drive voters to Trump by the droves. Bernie has a message similar to Trump, but one with compassion and focus on getting more for the not-1%. I don't see anyone trying both at once and actually getting a coherent message out there.

Since is probably going to be Hillary v The Donald, I won't be surprised to see Trump the winner. I'm not sure how to react to that.

Before heading to Canada -

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/03/wo...our/index.html

Serene Canadian island courts 'Trump refugees'

- I would turn to the morons (including for some, the mirror) and tell them, "you built that."

A lot of them will be the same morons that built what came after the 2010 elections

https://youtu.be/fw41BDhI_K8

Democracy = you get exactly what you deserve.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is getting silly. We've been through this many times. You believe that your efforts are exemplary and I think not. It's amazing that the police respond to security alarms, because they shouldn't have to do it. In a city the size of Minneapolis, the annual cost to the taxpayers for that one service to the business community is in the $10Million range or higher. Several go off every night, and resources have to be available to respond that are not needed elsewhere. Worse, they have to stand-by until the security service or business owner tells them they're done. If they said no, the security industry would fold like a cheap suit.

I believe my efforts are notable and you should stop manipulating me by inserting your views and stop approaching me as if I am not a well established US taxpayer. I understand that you spent the bulk of your time here representing the views of young left-wing voters and challenging the views of immature taxpayers during the Bush years. I don't represent either one of them. The police called me. The police have the names and numbers of local business property owners in their system. The police can't break into a privately owned building without a warrant unless there is an obvious sign of criminal activity taking place or a sign of criminal activity having taken place within the property. BTW, I don't live in Minneapolis. I have no business property in Minneapolis. Minneapolis has a government with elected people in place to address the issue you brought up with me about the use of its police force to respond to private security systems and private alarms.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I doubt he could ever say "take a meat cleaver to the whole enterprise," and seriously ever consider any run for the presidency. I doubt even Jill Stein could say that, or Ralph Nader. But from what I read at those and other links, he voted against the defense authorization act at least several times, and he votes to defund expensive military boondoggles. So I think that's a yes.

To paraphrase, Sanders says he would do a "Voice of the Customer" gathering feedback from the military itself, who would say yes to better body armor, small arms and other things that add value for them, and no to pork boondoggle expensive systems foisted by contractors. That said, there are certain things, for example strategic nuclear forces and C4I which if anything need more not less investment.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

To paraphrase, Sanders says he would do a "Voice of the Customer" gathering feedback from the military itself, who would say yes to better body armor, small arms and other things that add value for them, and no to pork boondoggle expensive systems foisted by contractors. That said, there are certain things, for example strategic nuclear forces and C4I which if anything need more not less investment.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the US's goose is cooked. Regardless of what transpires from now on we have nothing but a choice between a dissembling whore to the MIC, Shillary and a bombastic nutcase, that being Trump.

Cue VId! US = Man in the Box.




Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary is playing the politics of the past, Trump is trying to be the Fascist future, and poor Bernie is trying to be the decent future. Hillary is playing to the women and minorities that may get her elected, but also drive voters to Trump by the droves. Bernie has a message similar to Trump, but one with compassion and focus on getting more for the not-1%. I don't see anyone trying both at once and actually getting a coherent message out there.

Hillary, as you see in her speech I posted. Very clear and coherent.

Mother Jones agrees:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016...tuesday-speech

Since is probably going to be Hillary v The Donald, I won't be surprised to see Trump the winner. I'm not sure how to react to that.

Don't react to it before it happens!

I'm not sure what's going to happen, using my crystal ball. My new moon before election method favors Hillary, but Trump's horoscope score is better. My official prediction is Hillary, but of course my preferences sometimes get in the way of my predictions. It could be a crap shoot.

Republicans have become the party that nominates clowns. From the time of "I am not a crook" Nixon and "a Ford and not a Lincoln," to the charming deceiver Reagan, to the Bush who lacked the vision thing, to the Bush who was an obvious idiot who lacked even a semblance of intelligence, and now a group of clowns of unprecedented vulgarity and stupidity, including an entertaining demagogue who glories in his complete vacuity and con-artistry, the Republicans have given us a distinct choice. The Democrats meanwhile put up intelligent, sane leaders like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The Democrats are poised to stay in power for a generation, because the opposing party is stuck in reverse, while the Democrats have their gear in drive forward. We've come too far now to turn back ever again!

One other thing that boosts Hillary's chances: she will have two potent, awesome surrogates to speak on behalf of her candidacy and platform: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. And maybe Bernie Sanders too, and Elizabeth Warren! Trump will have no-one, except maybe Chris Christie, who may be his (grimacing) running mate. Two bullies speaking as one. Or, Sarah Palin?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary, as you see in her speech I posted. Very clear and coherent.

Mother Jones agrees:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016...tuesday-speech



Don't react to it before it happens!

I'm not sure what's going to happen, using my crystal ball. My new moon before election method favors Hillary, but Trump's horoscope score is better. My official prediction is Hillary, but of course my preferences sometimes get in the way of my predictions. It could be a crap shoot.

If Trump somehow won, we've already gotten indications that there may be a military mutiny. That's a fancy way of saying a potential coup. No joke. If he wins, the danger of our first ever coup goes way up. Even beyond the abortive anti-FDR one.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

If Trump somehow won, we've already gotten indications that there may be a military mutiny. That's a fancy way of saying a potential coup. No joke. If he wins, the danger of our first ever coup goes way up. Even beyond the abortive anti-FDR one.

After 240 years, maybe America is past due for a coup d'état. Depending on whose ox gets gored, let's hope a General Smedley Butler exposes the plot in time to save what's left of our Republic.

Originally Posted by playwrite

https://youtu.be/fw41BDhI_K8

Democracy = you get exactly what you deserve.

That hits the nail on the head

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

After 240 years, maybe America is past due for a coup d'état. Depending on whose ox gets gored, let's hope a General Smedley Butler exposes the plot in time to save what's left of our Republic.

I think the election of Trump or any Republican at this point would be a SELF-IMPOSED coup d'etat. No other coup needed; it would be a coup defacto. Remember dubya? He almost took us there. NO extra coup needed. The voters would have carried out a coup upon themselves. And don't think for a minute they might not do it!

Remember, Trump specifically advocates war crimes. He wants to go after the families of terrorists, bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture, and do the same things to the Islamists as what they do to others. What else might he do?

Cruz and Rubio are just as scary too. Rubio is more militaristic than Cruz, and Cruz is more of a social darwinist than Rubio. But both are bad on both counts. Rubio wants to launch a clash of civilizations and a war with China and Russia. He worships the man who deceived and lied to his whole generation. Cruz uses slogans that twist the truth like a pretzel to justify a society of greed and poverty for all but the oligarchy, with guns guaranteed for anyone who wants one; plus he smears and defames opponents just like he did when he was Joe McCarthy. He is the master of the big lie. And he's not alone on the clown stage in that department. 76% of anything that comes out of Trump's mouth is a lie, according to estimates by careful observers. And people think Hillary is a "liar" just because she gets a few details wrong or defends herself with some exaggerations? Gimme a funckin' break! Hillary is honest Abe compared to any of the passengers in the clown car! Trump is not only a liar, he's just as big a militarist as the other two. Even if he pulls back in places, he'll invite invasions that he'll have to respond to. He is completely naive. He wants to bring back torture and "bomb bomb bomb" using the biggest rebuilt military in history, and he's going to get the money for this by lowering taxes 3 times more than Dubya AND cut social spending like education and environmental protection? Reaganomics and voodoo economics on steroids! This is all true folks! This is what you are voting for if you let the clowns take over the ship of state!

MarketWatch just posted this article: "Nearly 90,000 sign petition calling for Bill Clinton’s arrest."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/petition-calling-for-bill-clintons-arrest-approaches-90000-signatures-2016-03-03

This is just a foretaste of what lies in wait for Hillary on her way to the nomination, if not the White House. Call it The Hunting of the President: Part 2.

Lest we forget, FOX News was spawned by Rupert Murdoch in 1996, just weeks before Bill Clinton's re-election. There are still powerful forces afoot--with deep pockets--that would just love to take down Hillary by way of impeachment. (They certainly had it in for Bill.) Hillary's troublesome email issue is under investigation, and who knows where that might lead before--or after--the election:

"Hillary's Victories Mean Painful Legal Choices for DOJ, WH":

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...or_doj_wh.html

...This bedrock choice between blind justice and political calculation is almost certain to confront Loretta Lynch once the FBI concludes its investigation into Hillary Clinton, her top aides, and the Clinton Foundation.

Her choice just got tougher now that the former secretary of state is sure to win the Democratic nomination. She effectively clinched that prize with an unheard-of 50-point victory over Bernie Sanders in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, on the heels of a solid victory in Nevada last Tuesday. Clinton's victory in the Palmetto State portends big wins all across the South, leaving Sanders with no realistic path to the nomination. After months of enthusiastic “Feel the Bern” rallies, the Democrats are now back where they started. As one prankster, who managed to photo-bomb a Clinton campaign rally, put it on his tee-shirt: “Settle for Hillary.”

Before Democrats officially settle, though, Clinton, Lynch, and Barack Obama have a treacherous bridge to cross.

Standing athwart it is FBI Director James Comey, an experienced prosecutor and consummate professional with some 100-150 agents investigating the Democratic front-runner, the Clinton Foundation, and (presumably) several of Hillary’s closest aides: Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan.

Clinton voters are oblivious to the dangers. Polls show they no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy,” but they still don’t think she has committed any crimes. Countless Clinton supporters have told me, “These investigations won’t find anything. The Benghazi hearings proved it. This is simply a partisan witch hunt.”

They are half right. The Benghazi hearings proved...that Congress has the investigative prowess of Homer Simpson. They are right that Republicans hate her. Divided as the GOP is, it is united in thinking Bill and Hillary are corrupt, self-serving liars.

But the GOP is not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. The bureau is not partisan, and it is not on a witch hunt. Despite the obvious risks of investigating the presumptive Democratic nominee during a Democratic administration, its agents are sorting through mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes...

If--and I say, if-- there were crimes committed, let's get it out in the open before the election. As fragile as our economy is, and as polarized as the electorate remains, we don't need another constitutional crisis after the election, ala Watergate.

Hillary supporters had best hope that her email controversy turns out to be "a tempest in a teapot." Otherwise, they're going to have one helluva case of buyer's remorse.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think the election of Trump or any Republican at this point would be a SELF-IMPOSED coup d'etat. No other coup needed; it would be a coup defacto. Remember dubya? He almost took us there. NO extra coup needed. The voters would have carried out a coup upon themselves. And don't think for a minute they might not do it!

Remember, Trump specifically advocates war crimes. He wants to go after the families of terrorists, bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture, and do the same things to the Islamists as what they do to others. What else might he do?

The coup would consist of the military deposing the Executive. An Anti-Trump coup.

I'm hoping that this election is polarizing enough that neither gets 270 electoral votes. And that this is the election that finally gets the broken American Election System fixed. Most people I know hate both Hillary and Trump to the point that they'd rather not vote than vote for either one of those 2.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

I'm hoping that this election is polarizing enough that neither gets 270 electoral votes. And that this is the election that finally gets the broken American Election System fixed. Most people I know hate both Hillary and Trump to the point that they'd rather not vote than vote for either one of those 2.

The Electoral College explains--in part--the appalling voter apathy that Robert Reich commented on in his latest book Saving Capitalism:

A large portion of the American public no longer even bothers voting. The largest political party in America is neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party; it's the party of non-voters. Only 58.2 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots in the 2012 presidential election. Turnout in midterm elections is always lower, but in the midterm elections of 2014 a measly 33.2 percent of the voting-age population turned out--the lowest percentage since the midterm elections of 1942...

And what if a carnival barker like Donald Trump succeeded in luring a good chunk of the non-voting public into the Big Top? A modern-day Trumpelstiltskin promising to spin straw into gold.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

The Electoral College explains--in part--the appalling voter apathy that Robert Reich commented on in his latest book Saving Capitalism:

A large portion of the American public no longer even bothers voting. The largest political party in America is neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party; it's the party of non-voters. Only 58.2 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots in the 2012 presidential election. Turnout in midterm elections is always lower, but in the midterm elections of 2014 a measly 33.2 percent of the voting-age population turned out--the lowest percentage since the midterm elections of 1942...

Perhaps #NeverTrump (or maybe two of them) would motivate the non voters. For sure the GOP are toast. That party will split at very least. The overturning has begun.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

I'm hoping that this election is polarizing enough that neither gets 270 electoral votes. And that this is the election that finally gets the broken American Election System fixed. Most people I know hate both Hillary and Trump to the point that they'd rather not vote than vote for either one of those 2.

That's not how it works. The election gets thrown into the House for the President and the Senate for the Vice President. There's no doubt the WH would then go to the GOP while everyone agrees, "see, the system worked."

The problem is that your children and maybe even your grandchildren will live with the decisions of the Supreme Court that either Trump or Cruz put in place.

We need to stop living in magic pony land - there ISN"T ANYTHING other than the Dem nominee winning the election that is going to stop the GOP from taking the WH and destroying this country... and no one gets a free pass on the personal consequences of that outcome. Anyone on the Left who isn't going to vote to keep the WH and the SCOTUS out of the hands of the GOP because they "hate" Hillary is more wrapped up in their own adolescent narcissism than caring for their country and their children's children. I just hope your "most people" will have the gonads to explain to their kids and grandkids that they build that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's not how it works. The election gets thrown into the House for the President and the Senate for the Vice President. There's no doubt the WH would then go to the GOP while everyone agrees, "see, the system worked."

The problem is that your children and maybe even your grandchildren will live with the decisions of the Supreme Court that either Trump or Cruz put in place.

We need to stop living in magic pony land - there ISN"T ANYTHING other than the Dem nominee winning the election that is going to stop the GOP from taking the WH and destroying this country... and no one gets a free pass on the personal consequences of that outcome. Anyone on the Left who isn't going to vote to keep the WH and the SCOTUS out of the hands of the GOP because they "hate" Hillary is more wrapped up in their own adolescent narcissism than caring for their country and their children's children. I just hope your "most people" will have the gonads to explain to their kids and grandkids that they build that.

Heck, on paper I'm GOP (at least that's my most recent registration) and even I will likely vote for the Dem this November. It would take a miracle for that not to happen (and I'm not merely referring to anyone besides Trump from the GOP side).

Cruz and Rubio are not interested in what's good for America. They are only interested in "the conservative movement." As you'll hear if you listen to them for even a few minutes.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

I'm hoping that this election is polarizing enough that neither gets 270 electoral votes. And that this is the election that finally gets the broken American Election System fixed. Most people I know hate both Hillary and Trump to the point that they'd rather not vote than vote for either one of those 2.

Playwrite is exactly right on that. There is no reason to hate Hillary. The fact that we don't have ideal candidates is not due to any system. It is due to Americans and whom they support. If Americans were willing to support a better candidate, they would vote for Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader. They don't. They voted for George W Bush, at least enough so he could cheat to win. A people like that cannot be expected to do any better than vote for Hillary Clinton. Gee whiz, get a grip on reality!

Hillary was the victim of Citizens United. She WILL appoint a justice that will allow campaign finance reform to be passed again. That's a big deal. If people want a good system, then act up to do what we did in CA and repeal gerrymandering! DO IT! damn it! and if you want a system that works, you 89 cohorts and other millennials you "know," then you guys need to get off your butt during midterm elections and vote! Take a few minutes out of your day in 2018 and go vote for a good candidate. Don't sit it out because you don't like Hillary. You voted for Obama, and then he failed just because YOU sat out the damn midterms! Vote! Before you wail against the system, learn how it works! Work on the man in the mirror before you blame Hillary Clinton for the mess you created by copping out!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Many may be an exaggeration. Definitely not a majority. I will not endorse Trump under any circumstance. Even if an overt Communist was the Left's candidate I would vote for the Communist over Trump. Trump would be that destructive.

And let us all collectively recall that in Back to the Future 2, the "nightmare world" aka the "Potterville" of that film, aka the alternate 1985 of "Biff's World" was in fact BASED on Donald Trump (taken to an extreme).

Little did we know that we'd live to see Donald himself take that extreme leap himself--perhaps we should have known he would all along.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, since the Day of Infamy, Dec.7, 1941. The birthday of our MIC. And at first, it regenerated our Depression economy; so it can work that way. But many observers have felt that since then, the cure became worse than the disease. It is an addictive growth that once gave us life, and has since taken over our lives. We are the world's policeman, at least sometimes. And fear of another Pearl Harbor (or of another "another Pearl Harbor," 9-11) rules out any major reduction in the budget for very long.

Since Vietnam and the McGovern takeover of the Democratic Party, Democratic presidents have acted more carefully and sparingly. Hillary may be more trigger-happy than Carter, Clinton and Obama have been. On the other hand, since no major new USA military involvement is going to happen in any would-be Hillary term, I am hopeful that she'll continue the post-Vietnam tradition among Democratic presidents. But a reduction in the budget doesn't seem likely anytime soon.

Trump "briefly" touches that Third Rail when he calls for revision or abrogation of US defence treaties and free trade treaties. That's why the Neo-cons are so intent on stopping him. But for that, they would probably reach an accomodation with Trump. What's happening is that authoritarians who are Trump's constituency have finally tumbled to the realisation that continual interventions in the Middle East do not make the US safe and only tie up resources that could otherwise be used to modernise the US military (while bringing troops home suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury). Kasich just dug the hole a bit deeper tonight by calling for US ground troops in Libya.
Don't bet on Hillary not engaging in a major military adventure if she has Michael Kagan (Victoria Nuland's husband) advising her. It was Victoria Nuland who helped organise the Maidan Coup in Ukraine. The Clintons already antagonised Russia with the Kosovo intervention and that was when Russia was a lot weaker than it is now. Russia will push back like a cornered rat if it is pushed hard enough. And I don't think official Washington of either party fully realises this. We refuse to realise that it is not just Muslims who are willing to fight and die and lose large numbers of people to avoid living in a world dominated by the US. We can't believe that our actions cause others to hate us so.