Wow. Even I wouldn't go that far. But I must find a way to use this sentence in court. It's marvelous. — Ciceronianus

He does have a way with words and cutting turn of phrase!

While a modicum of consciousness may have had survivalist
properties during an immemorial chapter of our evolution—so one
theory goes—this faculty soon enough became a seditious agent working
against us. As Zapffe concluded, we need to hamper our consciousness
for all we are worth or it will impose upon us a too clear vision of what
we do not want to see, which, as the Norwegian philosopher saw it,
along with every other pessimist, is “the brotherhood of suffering
between everything alive.” Whether or not one agrees that there is a
“brotherhood of suffering between everything alive,” we can all agree
that human beings are the only organisms that can have such a
conception of existence, or any conception period. That we can conceive
of the phenomenon of suffering, our own as well as that of other
organisms, is a property unique to us as a dangerously conscious species.
We know there is suffering, and we do take action against it, which
includes downplaying it by “artificially limiting the content of
consciousness.” Between taking action against and downplaying
suffering, mainly the latter, most of us do not worry that it has overly
sullied our existence.
As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual
or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give
precedence to suffering will be left behind. [ pace @Ciceronianus et al comments :) )
28
They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must
believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that
there is a “brotherhood of suffering between everything alive” would
disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good
life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a
conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one
marker, we advance to the next—as if we were playing a board game we
think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you
are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a
biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot
live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with
the undead and the human puppet. — Ligotti- CATHR

You must read Ligotti's optimistic interlocutor with a heavy dose of sarcasm of course.

Their need to play god started with preventing Germany from obtaining that Berlin to Baghdad Rail Road. — Vaskane

No doubt, imperial ambition was part-and-parcel of the British (and French) Empire's way of dominating the world (prior to WW2 basically). You control a region through soft power (sphere's of influence in China for example.. and all European nations including Germany had their sphere), or directly ruling a region (Africa, Middle East, and parts of Asia). You control ports of entry (Persian Gulf, Suez Canal, Red Sea, etc.), trade routes, and resources, and you gain the glory and riches from this in an interconnected globalized economic system.

I think you answered your own question. Britain didn't want it to be their issue.

Give your home to a Native American, and make a video for us all to see. If you wont then I see how you really feel about Israel too. — Vaskane

I'd be for a Native American state that is completely independent and not just reservations. If you remember, the Middle East was largely just districts within the Ottoman Empire, not their own nations. Nationalism, was instilled by Westerners. But if we were to inject the same 19th century notion of "nation for a state", just like Liberia was created for ex-slaves by the US prior to the Civil War, if there was a "Nation of First Nations of the American Continent", taken from public lands (there's plenty of that in the US and much more fertile than anything Israel was given in the Negev), then sure why not.

Differences of course are that the Middle East, being occupied by the Arabs since the Arab Conquest in the 600-700s, could be representative of the Americans.. Just like Israel was willing to accept at one point, even the tiny Peele Commission enclave, being that they are not going back to perfectly aligned ancient lands (like "Judea and Samaria" which is technically in the West Bank), and knowing that it is reconstituted, for modern notions of nationalism, sure, why not? Not sure if that would be something the Native American tribal nations would want per se.

You American? — Vaskane

Why is that pertinent?

Perhaps, but you certainly don't just dump a million people from what they had to nothing and be like. "Yeah, we're God's Chosen bruh, da fuqs 0usta h3r3! — Vaskane

Well, being that there was never going to be some peaceful negotiation from the start, this seemed to be inevitable being the interest of the two groups.

You provide the solution FIRST dumb ass, not cause the conflict first. — Vaskane

I don't know what you mean. The solution for Arabs was no Jewish state, period. Clearly, that wasn't a solution for Jews. So that outcome was rejected by Jews. That caused the Jews to seek independence, and they held their ground.

Actually it's been ongoing since WWI. — Vaskane

Sure we can go back even to 1937's Peele Commission recommendation which would have made Israel a tiny enclave near the Galilee.. The Arab neighbors, wouldn't even accept this (and the impetus prior to the Holocaust, was not there for Western nations to care enough).

And today's Israel has always been stolen land — Vaskane

So right. Being that this is first and foremost in your thought-process it seems, the rest of your arguments I honestly don't think matters as it is from this initial perspective that you arguing from (i.e. Israel shouldn't EVEN exist).

You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly. If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it. — Vaskane

You might even have a point here. But keep in mind several things:
1) The conflict has been going on since 1947, with the first move being the Arab rejection of UN Resolution 181. From then on, no one cared what the UN resolved, it seems. But what did "rejection" mean? It meant the Israeli war of Independence (lasted over 9 months), whereby Israel had to fight to even maintain not being pushed into the sea. It won and the borders that are now the position of the Oslo Accords (or thereabouts), was where that armistice line ended up being.

2) However, instead of creating a Palestinian state (that wasn't even conceived yet until the PLO in 1964), the goal was again to wipe out Israel instead of form a "two state solution", and thus Israel had to defend itself from annihilation again in 1967. They won that as well, now holding Gaza from Egypt, West Bank from Jordan (being that it was the "West Bank" of the Jordan River), and the Saini peninsula from Egypt.

3) Right after 1967, there was a plea made from Israel that the Arab nations had to disavow their destruction of Israel goal, and make peace and they would give back the newly obtained land. The Arab countries responded with the three No's.. (No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel).

4) Eventually Egypt did recognize and negotiate with Israel, as they wanted the Saini back. Jordan also normalized relations in 1994. Black September and the killing of the Jordanian prime minister in the 70s didn't help much with Jordan's relations with Palestinians, etc.

5) After a protracted war with the PLO in Jordan and then in Lebanon in the 80s, there was a movement to recruit the retired Arafat from Tunisia back into Palestine to negotiate a two state solution. This was around 1988. So here we have the first "intifada" and then shortly after the Oslo Accords.

6) The West Bank and Gaza were given 95% of what they wanted, with considerations that Israel had for security, as it was impossible after the previous wars for them to consider absolutely NO security measures. Besides which, Hamas was bombing Israel throughout the 90s and early 2000s, and it was CLEAR that security HAD to be part of the negotiations, lest they become even more weakened at a future point. Arafat could not except it, because, as someone else in this thread alluded to, "making peace in the Middle East is deadly". Rabin was shot, but the negotiations eventually continued with Ehud Barak. Didn't happen, second intifada ensued with even more Hamas bombings of cafes, busses, street corners, etc. Sharon responded by putting up the wall. He also pulled settlers out of Gaza.

7) Gazans voted IN Hamas, the very organization who was responsible for most of the deadly suicide bombings throughout the whole peace process, showing the "Fuck you" to the move to self-rule.

8) After 2008, Israel moved to the right as Hamas sent rockets over.. and then led to opportunists like Netanyahu and Smotrich etc. to use Hamas as proof that they could run roughshod in the West Bank with more settlements, and ignoring Abbas (who also didn't make it easy basically being afraid to make concessions himself.. but needed to hold power because Hamas would have been voted in the West Bank too.. Which would have widened this war and probably had it come sooner had they won the West Bank)..

Anyways, all of this is to show that none of this took place in vacuum, and it didn't JUST start with Netanyahu's policies. But was also pushed along, mainly, by Palestinian overtures against any negotiation, moderation, or peace. This led the opportunity for Netanyahu to enact his agenda, which was also not good. But legitimized it the more Hamas acted. That is to say, cause-and-effect is a thing when it comes to security matters and state formation. All the moves of Arab countries and then Palestinian independence (a very recent thing really not evolving to its current formation until Oslo Accords), led Israel down a rightward move towards downplaying peace. To many Israelis, it seems, the more they got towards peace, the more Hamas et al, would ramp up suicide bombings, attacks, and the like. Then a common quote would be "We just can't negotiate with them.. They say one thing and their terrorist wing does another thing. They aren't committed to peace"). And then they become hardened that containment is better than opening the lid to the container.

Well, certainly having children can’t help the situation and would represent a cognitive dissonance in belief and practice because of convenience, preference or otherwise.

But Bodhisattvas are said not to be reborn out of any inherent desire to continue existing, else they wouldn't be Bodhisattvas! — Wayfarer

Right. But the justification for non-monks to procreate nonetheless, because they hadn’t reached that level yet…they’ll just reach it on a future cycle..isn’t that how the argument goes? Strictly speaking, all adherents would immediately stop aspiration for starting a family.

All of them are a tacit optimism if they endorse life’s continuation in the face of conditions of suffering, so pessimism is clearly the winner :razz:

Conservatives are against the intrusion of government in our lives. Those called "Conservatives" now seem to relish government control, except perhaps when it comes to the ability to acquire and retain money. — Ciceronianus

The internal contradictions in American versions of conservatism is the tensions between personal freedoms and state’s rights, the 9th and 10th amendment, respectively. The ambiguities between when one can have precedence over the other, allows for all sorts of contradictory policies and positions.

It's more than that. It's a mode of life. Ok, so in your daily life, do you go through it in mostly non-self-reflective modes? In other words, you could decide not to get a job, go to work, do this or that. Why do you do such things? What goes through your mind? In fact, why do you have to have something "go through your mind". It is a certain existential mode of living. "A bad day" for a human and a "bad day for another animal" would I would claim, not even be in the same category. I'm not even sure we can apply that phrase to the animal other than our attitude towards that animal.

I agree.

The problem with using the word fascism is the baggage and the fraught argument over definitional fidelity. — Tom Storm

I think that's the problem here. It's like you know you've seen this playbook before, but it's so low level compared to say the rantings of a Hitler, and the much more militarized ambitions that there is a difference. Which is why I emphasize a slow burn.... And leaving open that this is simply a sort of opportunism as well run by a mafia boss. Hedge either way.. It's flirting with both.. dabbling in bad faith ways to gain and maintain power if you will. I doubt he studies this. It's more like he has the political instincts for these tactics.

I wonder how prevalent pro-Trump sentiment is in the military. If he gets in and seeks to consolidate a dictatorship would they follow? Or would this lead to a potential split... a civil war? Hypothetically, of course. — Tom Storm

This is an interesting question. Oddly, most of the bottom rank military I think supports him, despite his horrible remarks on dead soldiers. Boggles my mind actually.

@Tom Storm
So most of these "definitional" threads are going to be about how it's defined obviously. If we want to look at Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, or Imperialist Japan, we can see a very top-down, militarized society, beholden to a strong leader. That is not necessarily Trumpism.

However, if you want to define fascism by its use of tactics to wield power, and to discredit democratic principles, it can represent a sort of fascism. I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. I think that's enough to be alarmed. That being said, Trump's stated goals, are very much about pursuing his enemies. That isn't necessarily fascism. It's more mafioso mentality. Get in power in Machiavellian fashion, no matter what methods available, and exact revenge on your political opponents. The use of loyal crowds to promote your cause and cause light chaos when needed, like your own personal army, again, is adjacent to the trappings of fascism. Also for him is to ensure he doesn't end up in jail, and if so, it would be house arrest at Margo Lago. So he would simply make it extremely hard for people to put him in a position where he could be detained for all or any of this.

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection. — AmadeusD

Here's the course of events. You said:

This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard. — AmadeusD

Feel free to thnk what you think my friend :) — AmadeusD

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection. — AmadeusD

This is provoking and then trolling throughout to me.. Sorry but it is. You might want to have NOT started with "This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard". How is that not a provocation? If you want to make an argument go ahead, but BS ad hom posts like are trolling and provoking.

Lay it out for us. I want to hear your argument. — Tom Storm

He seems more interested in low quality posts and then trolling. Why cajole someone who can't seem to do that themselves?

This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard. — AmadeusD

Based on these low quality comments, it looks like projecting here. This is now the second thread I've seen you have not much to add when it comes to supporting your ideas except for sound bytes followed by ad hom.

I agree that does matter. But it does not mean that my life began my DNA was formed. I've tried endlessly to make a discussion with you, but you endlessly repeat the same doctrine, as you did in the message you sent to me on the Ryle thread. So I don't know what to say to you. But I do know that this non-discussion is getting boring. I don't have anything more to say about this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Very few philosophical discussions achieve agreement, so that shouldn't be surprising. But it is disappointing. Thank you for your time and attention. — Ludwig V

I'm making sure to clarify what the position is. As long as we know what we agree to disagree about. And even now this is not my position (not about personal identity despite the title as I stated before):

But it does not mean that my life began my DNA was formed. — Ludwig V

Rather, it's about the causal-history being this set of gametes and no other. This set of gametes is necessary, if not sufficient for you to be you. And that can only start at that point in time with that substantive set of gametes.

Like prosecuting one’s political opponents or removing them from the ballot? Given the unprecedented nature of each of these, we can watch in real time as the guardrails get removed one piece at a time. — NOS4A2

Prosecuting politicians who try to remove the guardrails off the political process (illegally asking for votes, encouraging, aiding, and not calling off a violent insurrection in the Capitol as sitting president?).

An intentional or unintentional pun on the question of Fascism? — Fooloso4

Haha, you can give @Echarmion credit for that. His quote actually. But yeah, that is a good one :smile:

Also, again, it's a slow build whereby the guardrails get taken off a bit at the time and normalized. Then use whatever norms that aren't strict laws to make decisions that work against the spirit of democratic governance, if not strictly illegal.

And I think this is ultimately why nothing "sticks" to Trump. His supporters do not care so long as he destroys the evil they are convinced is trying to rule their lifes.[/quote]

activities of his opponents — NOS4A2

See here:

I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is. — Echarmion

The USA has an armed populace. — AmadeusD

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters.

Ah, fascism improper. Ok — NOS4A2

Call it fascism-adjacent. Who knows what a second term will look like. In the case of the US, you can't just have fascism full-on. It has to be a slow build. It's going to look different.

Hallmarks and echoes aren’t good enough, I’m afraid. One has to show that fascism is the guiding “thought and action” behind he who implements it. — NOS4A2

Well, you ignored what I said in my last post. I said that I don't even care if it's not considered fascisim proper. It's certainly using the tools and has the hallmarks of how fascists use and abuse power.

Which “various aspects” have I missed? — NOS4A2

You focused on some of the structural stuff that doesn't apply. I don't even care if this should be called "fascism proper". It's certainly using the tools and has the hallmarks of how fascists use and abuse power.

Fascism has long been absorbed into the structure of the American state, starting with FDR. It's corporatism, grand public works, state propaganda, have a frightening similarity (Wolfgang Schivelbusch – Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939) with the policies of Mussolini and Hitler. The missing element is the abject totalitarianism, although we’ve seen it rear its ugly head during the pandemic. — NOS4A2

This is a false equivocation. Fascism has various aspects, not simply that the state sponsors programs, or gives subsidies to corporations. To be fair, Trump doesn't have the militant ideology of traditional fascism, but it has all the hallmarks that surround it:

1) Race baiting/identity politics (poisoning the blood, calling enemies vermin, demonizing illegal immigrants in harsh rhetoric)
2) Allusions to a glorious past (Make America Great Again)
3) Use of para-military forces to enforce will (January 6th, rallies, etc.)
4) Cult of personality of the leader (the unwavering support for Trump no matter what he says or does)
5) A support for fellow strongmen and dictators (admires Putin, Kim Jung Un, Orban, etc.)
6) Vows to exact vengeance on political rivals (calling them vermin, etc.)
7) General amoral stances to get things done (no moral center to values, simply transactional)
8) Believing executive power to be practically unlimited (this new case that the president is immune from any wrongdoing unless a Congress deems it so in an impeachment and conviction).
9) Ignoring democratic norms (using the ambiguities in the system to get into power, like asking for votes to those who count the votes, suing districts for counting the votes wrong, etc.. trying to have the rally-goers and vice president hold up a procedural vote.)

Many Christian literalists hold monarchy as an ideal, as that is what they expect in an afterlife. The extent to which such a view is consciously held varies, but it tends to be there to some degree as a consequence of the culture. — wonderer1

That might be so, yes. I think I have heard this before. I can also see it being, "God brings us messengers in various flawed forms". But you see, notice the convenience that the message is what they already wanted to hear. So it is a very convenient belief to have.

Most important though, it is far less a movement of unity than the fascist movements. The fascists certainly looked inward for enemies, but they were also looking outward, a far cry from the isolationist trends in Trumpism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not exactly. The immigrants in the border are the "other". You can support better border security policies without framing the way he is doing.. DeSantis and Haley, whatever your feelings towards their policies, are standard rhetoric regarding this stance WITHOUT the "outward enemy" rhetoric. It's a not so subtle difference to emphasize security and being anti-drug smuggling and "poisoning the blood".

You see the "must" in that sentence, don't you? — Ciceronianus

No, it's not about morality, it's about the facts of the matter. You cannot escape the issues of being humans, hence you MUST face them. Like, if you don't do X, Y, Z, or avoid 123, you will die.

If I said, in order to pull the handle you must break the glass... and you said, "I don't have to do anything! You can't make me!" You wildly misinterpreted what I meant.

One hardly needs to be fascist to believe that the United States political ruling class is rotten to the core and should be removed for the sake of the people. In fact, looking at it from across the pond that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist. — Tzeentch

Yes, and this is the more subtle version of what is going on.. To morally equivocate standard corruption of politicians (making money from being in office generally in some fashion is usually the corruption here, but also hiding agendas etc.), doesn't mean that these politicians DISMANTLE the very system and MANIPULATE their voters to do their bidding. Also, they do not dog whistle (generally) in blatant and egregious forms of divisive/shocking racial/identity/supremacy rhetoric.

Certainly, I will say, I find it so interesting that the "moral majority" (mainly white evangelicals) go along with him, despite their railing against the Clinton years and so on. Obama gave them nothing to hate in that department, but Trump brought it back a thousand time over, but because of his court appointees regarding abortion, anything goes.

Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist. — Tzeentch

I wouldn't say they are fascist. But they may (unconsciously) hold views that conform with fascist tendencies. I might characterize it more as cognitive dissonance. In normal conversation they would condemn such things, but once the cult leader says it, it is defended. It really becomes an identity thing more than anything. It started as sort of a joke.. he's an outsider, and he's pissing off "the libs", and then it becomes actually embracing him no matter what.

What of the Democrats, who shunned RFK Jr. and forced him to go independent? What of Hillary and Bernie?

Undemocratic and tasteless though such things may be, they're hardly exclusive to Trump or the Republican party. It actually seems to be a core feature of American democracy. — Tzeentch

That's not the same of what I am talking about. If RFK, Jr. Ran as a democrat, and was afraid to bash Biden because he was afraid Biden voters would be angered, that would might be the same. There is nothing comparable on the Democratic side.

And it's also typically democratic to point fingers at the other side and ignore the own side's role in the myriad of problems that plague the system. — Tzeentch

That's just politics in general. Blame the other guy for your failings. There is a general "my party above all else" that permeates all of it, but that is a different, systemic problem- one that Washington clearly predicted in his Farewell Address.

But this is the Middle East and both sides see themselves having the need to defend themselves. As I've pointed out, the most lethal thing for a politician in that region is to try to make peace. — ssu

Yes, this it seems, we agree with. I will just bring up the fact that in the Israeli case, they generally wanted to be left alone prior to 1967 and then 1973. Yet NO ONE I have seen in these debates acknowledges that Israel now has the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt and the other countries wanted to ATTACK Israel and blow it off the map. I disagree with how the settler movement happened. However, I understand only one part of the West Bank strategy: That KNOWING that the countries and groups want your dissolution and/or obliteration, they felt that the hill country in the West Bank was strategic to control on top of the well known fact that having a KNOWN hostile enemy on your borders with only 16 miles between Gaza and the West Bank, where the country could be cut in half.

So with security in mind, Israelis negotiated with the KNOWN hostile neighbors to have 95% of what they wanted with secure borders and it failed each time. As you said, leaders are afraid to make peace deals in that region. It's not in their mortal interest, for sure.

And now currently, just curious. What if there were calls to return the hostages? That would be the minimal approach to giving Israel the onus of stopping the war. What if they did the maximal thing and offered to hand themselves in because they care about their citizens and don't want the destruction to continue? Could that be an option? But the answer to this is telling, because besides the knee-jerk reaction to the other side, it implies that they shouldn't do that. So you will make the claim it won't do anything (which is most likely false), and then imply that they shouldn't (taking a side).

Heck, they can just take a book by Noam Chomsky — ssu

Yeah, he's known for presenting unbiased non-leftist view of things :roll:.

Starting with Operation Ajax, if not even earlier. And they can see themselves being in just as a perilous situation facing imminent attack from hostile foreigners as one other country that I won't mention. — ssu

And here we are again, you simply fell into the trope I already pointed out and yet you did anyways here:

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1

That is to say, interference didn't prevent them from going the way of Tunisia in 1979. But that would work against general leftism anti-Western ideology. Cut your nose to spite your face. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.. Same thing heaped on US foreign policy applies to the former Soviet Union / Russia and general anti-Western Leftism (quote some more Chomsky for this kind of argument). That is to say, all the things that one would blame on the West, can be accused of anti-Westerners in a converse argument. All the things that are blamed an external force can be blamed on internal failings in a converse argument.

So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? :brow: Casting suspicion on anyone who disagrees with you is not a great starting point for discussion, and would sooner suggest that what you're looking for is an echo chamber. — Tzeentch

No, that's not what I mean. It's not that if you support Trump's policies, therefore you must be gaslighting me. Specifically, if you bring up what Trump has said and done to take of the guard rails of the American democracy, and introducing dangerous rhetoric into the political system that echoes things you might here in a rightwing rally in the 1930s, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed alarming, and despite agreeing in various policies, the person is too dangerous, they will say that it's no big deal, or that they haven't read what is all over MSM (because they have their own echo chamber of rightwing podcasts/takshow hosts curating what matters). Or, exactly as was stated here:

I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is.

And I think this is ultimately why nothing "sticks" to Trump. His supporters do not care so long as he destroys the evil they are convinced is trying to rule their lifes.

And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders. — Echarmion

I really can't say much more than that. It is exactly what seems to be going on with that.

I mean look at Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. In their debates, they are afraid to trash on the frontrunner who is the most corrupt president we've had in terms of blatantly using democratic means secure his power and whose divisive rhetoric has made the divisions that much greater. They know this, but they barely address Trump's unsuitability to take office, and his offensive behavior because that would mean the base would reprimand by not even considering such blasphemy of their dear leader. But that just shows the lack of backbone on their part. Only Chris Christie has spoken out forcefully in the presidential primary. Hell, Nikki Haley might even be letting open the possibility of being Trump's VP!

But that just speaks to the fact that its the VOTERS who are keeping these spineless politicians beholden to their dear leader.. And instead of taking a moral stance against him, they cowtow to their will. Where does that leave politics in general then? As slimy as it's ever been.

Yeah so what does this world look like? Prior to and after Trump, you essentially got the gist of an American democratic society. You have post Ww2 Western Europe. It’s liberal democracy that tends towards consumerism but has the freedoms not to if one chooses. Countries pursue self interest for resources and trade and using their monetary policy. That’s a given. I don’t need secret cabal-style “oh no!” documents to prove what’s obvious about corporations pursuing their goals for profit. But besides these not so interesting “revelations” that general anti-globalist Leftist ideas proffer, what is this counter Iran’s end goal vision is that they are countering? I don’t need Islamic jihadism to tell me free trade can cause trade imbalances. So again, what are they offering? Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? I guess it redirects attention away from them for their own citizens. It gives them a show of power in the region. But power usually is for a goal. Economic, ideological, etc. it’s usually not simply that one has the power to display a show of power because it always begs the question, “for what purpose”? Simply showing you can cause violence in a region for its own sake makes no sense other than one wants to cause chaos for its own sake. — schopenhauer1

@ssu well?

Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic??? — ssu

Yeah look at that topic. It’s already biased, so are you saying we have to buy into the inherent bias of the thread (started years ago) to discuss the broader Middle East from which this topic is part of and relevant to being the players that are involved?

I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is. — ssu

Yeah so what does this world look like? Prior to and after Trump, you essentially got the gist of an American democratic society. You have post Ww2 Western Europe. It’s liberal democracy that tends towards consumerism but has the freedoms not to if one chooses. Countries pursue self interest for resources and trade and using their monetary policy. That’s a given. I don’t need secret cabal-style “oh no!” documents to prove what’s obvious about corporations pursuing their goals for profit. But besides these not so interesting “revelations” that general anti-globalist Leftist ideas proffer, what is this counter Iran’s end goal vision is that they are countering? I don’t need Islamic jihadism to tell me free trade can cause trade imbalances. So again, what are they offering? Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? I guess it redirects attention away from them for their own citizens. It gives them a show of power in the region. But power usually is for a goal. Economic, ideological, etc. it’s usually not simply that one has the power to display a show of power because it always begs the question, “for what purpose”? Simply showing you can cause violence in a region for its own sake makes no sense other than one wants to cause chaos for its own sake.

Your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think is on display across the forum. It's not an ad homs to point this out. — Benkei

This is generic smear based on your bias, but carry on with ad home and unsupported smears. You don’t like it if the history doesn’t support your narrative and then ad hom and poison the well without reasoned arguments for the rest when you are bothered. But carry on.