And you think he’s going to do this in the 2028 election, even though he can’t and won’t run in 2028? Utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

"“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”"

He'll just make up some bullshit and then call for terminating the Constitution again. The authoritarian playbook for consolidating power is not hard to follow: declare an emergency, suspend whatever rules there are, and tell the people you're their only hope.

The saving grace here is that Trump will be very old, but if he's capable of reading a teleprompter, they'll certainly try and keep him in power. Even if he's in a coma, one of his toadies will try and "terminate" the 22nd amendment.

I guess then you have to ask if the support for a ceasefire is manufactured or real? — FreeEmotion

I think it's real too. Leftists have always had a soft spot for oppressed peoples, and Israel, with it's vastly superior military, can't help but come across as a bully. I can see both sides' reasoning, and they both make compelling arguments.

Any non-partisan approach would want civilians to stop getting killed. They do not care about the causes they represent, as much as some ideological stand about self- determination - which Israel has, and was achieved partly though violent means. In any case, there are Jewish people asking for a ceasefire as well.

Agreed.

I can see valid arguments for each side, however some of the starting assumptions I do not agree with, and this is a matter of personal beliefs, which are unassailable under the Charter of Human Rights.
Agree?

"Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."


I already see a problem here. Ukraine certainly isn't going to act in a spirit of brotherhood towards Russian soldiers (or even Russian civilians who are in the way of a high value target), nor should they.

Indeed, so the question is, is this 'manufactured consent' or real? — FreeEmotion

I think it's real. Everyone knows Jewish people. Their country is similar to ours. They don't hate women or gays. They don't revel in the slaughter of innocents. They're our allies in the fight against Islamic terrorists. Do people under 30 really understand the horror of 9/11 or how much it changed America?

But it's not AIPAC or the over 7 million Jews in the US, it's the 70 million Christian Evangelicas. — ssu

"While religiosity and partisanship do play a part in how Americans view each side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is important to note that support for Israel is greater than for the Palestinians in every political and religious group we analyze. And other results show Americans view Israel as a nation much more favorably than unfavorably, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio."
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/247937/americans-views-israel-remain-tied-religious-beliefs.aspx

The difference is, of course, Russia is a far larger country than Ukraine and so at loss rates even somewhat close to parity, Russia will win the war of attrition. — boethius

Wars of attrition are not fought to the last man standing, they are fought till one side loses the will to fight and disengages, as the U.S did with Vietnam and the S.U. did with Afghanistan. The attempted coup in Russia did not happen in a vacuum. There is a limit to what the Russian people will accept.

Trump was educated in the Ivy League. — NOS4A2

Well, Trump went to the Ivy League.

Trump's an idiot, wouldn't be surprised to find forum members who like his style though. — Vaskane

I think there's only one here.

Arguably, it could be. I mean, obviously it is a complicated system that we cannot predict easily, but presumably it is actually behaving according to the kinds of regularities that underlie the laws of physics where particular inputs have outputs which are computable. Doesn't seem an inherent difference from what neurons do. Could a system of chaotically behaving abacuses not self-organize into a brain under the right circumstances? Where is the dividing line? — Apustimelogist

That's a good question. Consciousness as information processing would seem to lead to some variation of panpsychism. I personally think there is no information processing without a mind to interpret it as such. A computer running a simulation of something with no one looking at it isn't running a simulation; it's sounds and pixels on a screen lighting up. There needs to be a mind observing the result to make it a simulation.

If thats the case, isn't it plausible that other information processing structures have experiences of that information which are completely different to our experiences? — Apustimelogist

Is an abacus falling through the air, the beads moving this way and that, processing information? Does it have experiences?

It's also easy to turn things around and point out that the US alone wouldn't survive much on the world stage, it needs its allies just as much as they need the US. It's easy to get lost in the size of the US and forget the capabilities of other nations. Just think about the Swedish little sub who single handedly took down a US Aircraft Carrier. What others don't have in numbers they make up in tech and strategies. So I think you need to adjust your idea of how important the US is, even if it is the most important military ally. — Christoffer

I agree with you here. The world is interconnected, and America can't do it alone. We need allies to contain countries like Iran, Russia, and China. We need a strong Israel to serve as a counterweight to the barbaric states that surround her.

At least on my part, I'm genuinely concerned about the health of the US democracy. And it would seem to be false pride to reject criticism because you're yet strong. — Echarmion

I started worrying about American democracy when Republicans went off the deep end after Obama was elected. I think they saw the writing was on the wall for their brand of white Christian patriarchy and they collectively went nuts. But I was heartened by Biden's victory, the 2022 midterms, and these recent abortion referendum. I don't believe Trump can win again. I think America passed a stress test. I'm still very much concerned though. And sometimes European criticisms of America annoy me. It's easy to bitch about our system, but it has endured and America remains a colossus and a positive force in the world.

You can look at places like Scandinavia and Europe to find democracies that have less corruption than the US. — Christoffer

I'm sure there are places that have less corruption than the U.S. I'm not sure their system would work for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. It also amuses me when Europeans trash the U.S. while living under the umbrella of protection we've provided for their whole lifetimes.

You think that's all the democracies that exist in the world, the US and then all that's been "rescued"? No others? — Christoffer

Which democracies did you have in mind?

Does not equal the system perfect or better than other democracies with far less corruption and problems. — Christoffer

Do you mean other democracies that were rescued by America at some point in their past?

You. I answered the question first, and then criticised it. Do you think that repeating it makes it more cogent? — unenlightened

I'm not clear on what you mean. You want to sanction and discourage politicians from lying. We already have libel and slander laws. Apparently, you want to go further. You want government to sanction and discourage politicians from lying? I see enormous problems with that.

But this is not some radical reform I am proposing; there have been prohibitions on fraud, libel, etc since a long while in many communities, because communication is founded on truth and trust. — unenlightened

I have no problem with fraud and libel laws, but you said

need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. — unenlightened

Who's going to do the sanctioning and discouraging, if not government?

On the contrary, media that lie, advertisers that lie, estate agents, politicians, scientists, doctors, that knowing ly lie and deceive, need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. — unenlightened

Who's going to be the arbiter of truth? Government?

It is very telling of how bad the US democracy is built if Trump is sentenced and he still wins an election. The US democratic system is just a patch work of stupidity compared to other developed nations with functioning democracies. Like rolling out the red carpet for corruption and no one seems to care enough to do anything radical to change it. The delusional idea that the US system is the best things can get and that any problem is due to something else or someone else. The US needs an overhaul of it's entire system. Throw the constitution in the trash and draw up a new one with up to date ideals. If Trump gets sentenced to jail and win the election and people won't do anything other than write "how could this happen?" on their social media accounts, then that's a clear sign that the US will end up in the gutter in the long run. — Christoffer

The American system certainly has staying power- 200+years and counting. The system can be amended to add safeguards against someone like Trump again.

You can't win against quislings. It's just a game of whack-a-mole; every time you knock down some bullshit claim, they pop-up with another one. Then, when you've handed them their ass on that one, they circle back to the original bullshit, and claim they were right all along.

I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. — FreeEmotion

So you think the inmates at Sobibor death camp were wrong to rise up?

So you're saying it isn't already? 10,000 in the meantime right? — Benkei

You can't make an omelette...seriously though, Germany and Japan suffered civilian casualties many orders of magnitude higher than what Israel has dished out (and will eventually dish out) and became better countries for it. Change is messy. War is hell. Innocent people get killed. What did the Palestinians and Hamas think would happen when they decided to go down this road together? Did they think it would end well? Did they think they could pull off something like 10/7 and not get the shit kicked out of them?

Yeah, that's the issue. Who is the deciding 'we'? The colonial West? It seems to me that the nearest entity with a valid claim to being 'we' is the United Nations. — bert1

The UN would be the closest thing. I was making a point, though, that the moral thing to do (on some views of morality) is to continue to let Israel control the land.

I think his point was at which indignation does one choose focus on? — schopenhauer1

Partly. From a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view, we have to look at it like:

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. What will each group do if they get control of the land? Group A will create a society where Muslim men have all the power. Group B will create a much more inclusive democratic society. People will be better off if Group B owns the land. Therefore, group B should get the land. If Group A gets their act together, we can reevaluate their claims to the land.

And since we usually don't reward thieves — Benkei

But we should reward land to people who would treat women and LGBTQ people like dirt? Until the Arab countries stop dehumanizing women and minorities, they should be treated as inferior to other, more equitable, nations.

What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys? — schopenhauer1

Any American or Israeli leader that has a 9/11 or 10/7 happen to them and does not plan for immediate retaliation would be removed from office. Is there any country that would tolerate a pacifistic leader after such an attack?

I'll still vote for Biden over Trump, but let's not pretend things have gone well in the last four years. There's a reason Biden is losing to Trump in numerous polls.

The world has gone to shit under his watch. Afghanistan was a humiliating debacle. The border situation is a festering wound. The Democrat NY mayor says New York might be "destroyed" by an influx of migrants. Americans are still reeling from historically high inflation. There's a stench of corruption around his whole family. Stores are pulling out of Democratic run cities because of rampant shoplifting. And he's too old.

I read an article that Biden could be replaced at the convention. That the delegates are not legally bound to vote for him, regardless of what happens in the primaries. I can't remember the name of the article. Also, suppose it's July and Biden is still trailing Trump in polls. The pressure on Biden to drop out would be enormous. But then, wouldn't Harris then get the nomination?

Politicians support Israel because the public supports Israel, older people in particular. Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/13/1205627092/american-support-israel-biden-middle-east-hamas-poll

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-rejects-progressives-call-for-cease-fire-in-israel-conflict-hamas-has-got-to-go/

Right on, Bernie.

I don't think Biden will be the nominee. If he gets forced out at the convention in favor of someone like Newsom, nobody will shed a tear. Nobody likes Biden. Harris will still be the VP, though.

:up:

Do you mean the west should be antagonistic toward countries that don't value rights and liberal principles? — frank

It depends on what the goals of those countries are. Are they expansionist? Are they threatening other Western countries and/or countries that are friendly to Western interests? Do they fund anti-West terrorists? The West should definitely be antagonistic towards China, Russia, Iran, and N. Korea.

That question is too vague. — 180 Proof

No, it's not. The Allies were morally superior to the Axis. Full stop. That's one of the clearest real-life moral cases we have. The Nazi's were so bad that invoking comparisons to them shuts down debate (Godwin's Law). Your anti-Israel bias has blinded you to some obvious moral truths. I get why. You don't want to follow this chain of logic: if the Allies can kill innocent people and still claim the moral high ground, then Israel can kill innocent people and still claim the moral high ground.

I'm claiming that Allied war crimes were morally equivalent to Axis war crimes insofar as they were both war crimes. Your special pleading is what's absurd, sir. Inform yourself. — 180 Proof

OK, so there is a moral equivalence between Axis and Allies viz-a-viz war crimes, but the war crime moral equivalence does not create an overall moral equivalence between the two? Even though the Allies committed war crimes, they were morally superior to the Axis. Is that correct?

Yes. What makes actions "war crimes" is that, to begin with they are not self-defensive, etc. — 180 Proof

But there wasn't a moral equivalence between the Axis and Allies. Are you claiming the Allies were just as bad, morally, as the Axis? That's absurd.

The Allies certainly commited their share of war crimes (e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ...) — 180 Proof

Let's go with war crimes then. Does the committing of Allied war crimes entail a moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis?

Read again instead of misquoting the definition and asking dumb questions as a result. — Benkei

So the Allies didn't commit genocide against Axis populations.

killing members of the group
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part — Benkei

Did the Allies commit genocide against populations of Axis powers?

I'll just repeat: everyone engages in othering. — unenlightened

Ain't that the truth.