Next you’re going to tell us video games cause violence.

Next you’re going to tell us video games cause violence — NOS4A2

Are you so brain-dead that you can't admit this type of stochastic terrorism by the president and his supporters is bad?

No, what’s bad is surreptitiously taking a picture of someone’s t-shirt and spreading it among the uncritical masses on twitter for political gain.

I think it's just that we're horrified by the way they achieve peace. — frank

Well, why shouldn't we be?

If we go looking for allies in the region, of course we'll find them, just as Russia and Assad would find allies in the US or the UK if they had the power to intrude. But by intruding in the US, Russia would be ripping open old wounds, and then: surprise! the US falls apart. "It's just like those people to turn on each other" the Russians would say.

Aside from the occasional civil war and mob protest, Americans actually get along really well (because we're left alone to discover our own balance.) — frank

Eh, I don't know. Germany was invaded by 3 powers, split into two countries for 45 years, and yet still came out as a mostly coherent country. Sure prolonged struggle can rip a country apart, but the problem in the Middle East is that there is no shared history of being in a nation-state at all.

There was never a natural progression of institutions that led to the formation of the modern states. Instead, the state boundaries were imposed, and then meddled with by foreign powers. Not a great starting point.

There's nothing like a Norwegian peace-maker to settle things down. But some conflicts have to play out. Putting it off doesn't solve anything. Or does it? — frank

But who knows which conflicts have to play out? Sometimes violence cannot be avoided, I'd agree. Plenty of historical developments are difficult to imagine without violence. But these things are usually only clear with hindsight, and ususally quite a lot of it.

I don't really see a conflict that "has to" play out in the middle east. There is plenty of religious strife, and plenty of regional jostling for power, with a fair bit of proxy war thrown in. Situations that "require" violence are, I think, ones where you have a very stable, but dysfunctional system, and that system cannot be overcome apart from simply tearing it down. But there has been a lot of change in the middle east. I don't see the equivalent of a "cleansing fire" somehow changing the basic problem - a bunch of weak states being jostled around by a few stronger states, which themselves are jostled around by mahor players.

The Iraq war was about democratizing the middle east. Bush's strategists made that clear. What followed was one three-stooges style error after another, giving rise to ISIS and then the cherry on top was Obama's apparent promise to Syrian rebels that the US would give them aid.

Years later. Holy fuck. Yes, American engagement was largely about fostering western values such as exhausting your energy in democratic bickering rather than in blowing up world trade centers. — frank

No doubt it was a collossal failure. But I don't think this is because the region is somehow not "fit" for western values. I think it was simply the wrong approach. I think the strategists simply did not recognise how different, say, Iraqi society is. Western Europe and the US are uniquely individualistic, with comparatively very weak family ties and a long history of a rule of law. You cannot simply implant these things into another culture. You have to let them grow.

Prior to British colonization, India did not look all that much different than the middle east does now. There was no unified indian state. There were a bunch of small states with different religions. Yet after independence, India became a successfull democratic state. There, western values "worked".

This is a great article by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. Even with his disdain for Trump, he can see the dangers of the IC coup. This is at least a less partisan look at the current situation in Washington.

We’re in a permanent Coup

Being a Trump supporter clearly causes some form of brain damage

And Trump's move out of Syria is easily one of the worst foreign decisions since the Iraq War.

No, what’s bad is surreptitiously taking a picture of someone’s t-shirt and spreading it among the uncritical masses on twitter for political gain. — NOS4A2

Political gain, eh?

How about being a concerned citizen?

Shit is wild.

About a t-shirt?

I don't know. Should we tolerate the intolerant?

I don't know. Should we tolerate the intolerant?

No, we should not tolerate the intolerant.

No, we should not tolerate the intolerant. — NOS4A2

Then why lynch journalists or at least tacitly approve of such an action/state of affairs?

Clearly wearing a t-shirt is not lynching a journalist. There is only one intolerant person in the photo, and it is the person holding the camera.

Clearly wearing a t-shirt is not lynching a journalist. There is only one intolerant person in the photo, and it is the person holding the camera. — NOS4A2

Are you on crack?

Are you on crack?

You had to add “lynching a journalist” to make it sound like the guy was being intolerant.

You had to add “lynching a journalist” to make it sound like the guy was being intolerant. — NOS4A2

Maybe you didn't get the reference... Are you from the US? Southern states perhaps?

I get the reference, yes. Are you unable to tolerate his t-shirt?

Are you unable to tolerate his t-shirt? — NOS4A2

Sure, I can. But, I don't want to sit next to him on my flight to Hawaii.

Lol, that’s at least fair.

I do not think the video will result in violence toward media. I just see it as yet another example of Trump devotees' slavish devotion, uncritically accepting that the media is enemy, so that nothing they report is to be believed. This devotion makes them blind to his corruption - because all negative reporting is perceived as the work of the enemy to bring down their hero. I'm not angered, I'm saddened. Trump is not the real problem; the real problem is that so many fail to see reality.

I actually hated that scene in the movie itself. For some reason it really left a profoundly bad taste in my mouth when I watched it originally. I still can't articulate why (maybe its a class thing?), but I suppose I'm not surprised by the appropriation. — StreetlightX

Ditto. I seem to have grown sick of gratuitous violence in action films sometimes in the last couple of years.

I also feel that this story isn't news. I actually kinda agree with Nosferatu. It's not really worse than the original movie.

You could even interpret it in a subversive way given the context of the scene in the movie.

Yes, I’m aware that you’re trying to connect me, speciously, to the demonization of Jews in Nazi Germany. I was merely turning it back on you. Does it scare you that you possess the same urges?

Neither has freedom from slavery ever been total, but the persistence of slavery is an not argument against freedom. But you know better. — NOS4A2

And now non sequitor and incoherence. The reason, I suspect, you're so slick is because there is no bone in you anywhere, just jelly. And not a good jelly.

And now non sequitor and incoherence. The reason, I suspect, you're so slick is because there is no bone in you anywhere, just jelly. And not a good jelly.

Zing!

Tim, your great writing is betrayed the moment you try to come up with an insult. What a shame.

And now non sequitor and incoherence. The reason, I suspect, you're so slick is because there is no bone in you anywhere, just jelly. And not a good jelly. — tim wood

I loled.

Eh, I don't know. Germany was invaded by 3 powers, split into two countries for 45 years, and yet still came out as a mostly coherent country. Sure prolonged struggle can rip a country apart, but the problem in the Middle East is that there is no shared history of being in a nation-state at all.

There was never a natural progression of institutions that led to the formation of the modern states. Instead, the state boundaries were imposed, and then meddled with by foreign powers. Not a great starting point. — Echarmion

Germany and Japan were special projects by post-WW2 USA. Americans blamed WW2 on France and Britain. Instead of fostering stability in Germany post-WW1, they did the opposite and then stood by while Germany imploded. It was important not to let that happen a second time.

My question was whether the middle east needs continuing parental control, or can the kids figure it out on their own? What would be the case for continued intervention?

Prior to British colonization, India did not look all that much different than the middle east does now. There was no unified indian state. There were a bunch of small states with different religions. Yet after independence, India became a successfull democratic state. There, western values "worked". — Echarmion

So India was broken before the British took over? Really?

This devotion makes them blind to his corruption - because all negative reporting is perceived as the work of the enemy to bring down their hero. — Relativist

That's because Trumpism is a cuit.

Anyone see the knot tightening around Trump as a noose? In selling out the Kurds, he's a murderer. Done as a betrayal of his oaths and his country, for his own gain. To borrow a phrase, he is perfect gallows. I hope they have a lottery the winner looping it around his neck. And so many should swing with him. I'm against capital punishment on principle, mainly because crimes are usually against persons - and that gets complicated. But such betrayal and treason are crimes against all the people, properly requiring hanging.

Turn it upside down and one could argue that's just what Trump wants, to be hanged. He's worked for it, earned it, he should get it: it must be what in his darker corners wants even more than to marry Ivanka.

Scoop is that AOC will be endorsing Bernie at a rally in Queens on Saturday (and possibly Ilhan Omar and Tlaib)

Turn it upside down and one could argue that's just what Trump wants, to be hanged. — tim wood

HuffPost reported that one of his recent tweets ended 'impeach the Pres.' It didn't seem sarcastic or rhetorical, just a bald statement. And I'm starting to think he really does have a political death wish - that he himself knows he's not up to the job, but he can't ever admit it, either to himself or anyone else. So instead he will just do things that guarantee his removal from office, but all the while putting up the pretense of 'poor persecuted me'.

Another thing - even it's true that the Senate would vote to acquit Trump, I don't see how it's remotely conceivable that he could run again after what's been published already. I think his Presidency is irreparably shattered by what's coming out through this enquiry and the sooner the GOP recognises it and demands his resignation, the better off everyone will be. Personally I think it's a matter of days.

True that! I think we will see a lot of' 'protest vote' choice/lesser of two evils kind of rationale at the voting booth, assuming he's not removed. Kind of like what a lot of Trumper's did in 2016 against Hillary. Problem is, many won't admit it...