Never before have such large proportions and swaths of the honeycombs been owned or controlled by so few (this is a problem that inadvertently stems from imperfect markets).

The other side of the flipping coin you've impressed is actually the failure itself; it wasn't that we actually ever needed kings, it's that we were either to escape the direct (usually force based) control they exerted (maybe because of markets, or maybe because the king's power system collapsed). We still have a system that enforces a particularly lord like way of things (Bezos is bona fide global Baron).

If necessary, we can conceptualize the social contract strictly as the set of sentiments and agreements that holds back social chaos or revolution. To progress we must adapt these agreements, else sooner or later circumstances will find a critical exception.

I'm speaking in the broad and general sense. Stock purchasing is for day traders and portfolio managers, and yes some of their clients may win or lose big, but assuming that investors have insight on the whole, they will wait and begin buying when appropriate. It's more about the concentration of value (that which affects the inequality of overall wealth distribution. Those rich enough to own or purchase significant stock positions are one example of *rich*, but really my point is that the richer you are, the less you are affected, and the more you stand to gain, relatively speaking.

We can also look at things from the operational side of business; how many small businesses are going to shutter as a result? (if you appreciate gutsy investment, small business entrepreneurs face ridiculous odds and create value directly even wen they fail). Unless they provide a covid-relevant service, they may not make it through the next few months. I suspect Amazon is going to benefit immensely from this.

Just want to make a quick assertion regarding wealth distribution (please challenge it if possible):

Coronavirus is costing the global economy trillions of dollars. It has the potential to throw us into a prolonged recession (especially if covid-19 sticks around as a seasonal illness). In short, the economy is being decimated.

Now... My assertion: who is this going to affect the most? You would think that trillions in losses would be hitting the wealthiest the most, but because the costs are somewhat spread out, it is imposing the same absolute costs on roughly everyone (the cost of temporary shut down and medical expense). Therefore, in the short term, those most seriously impacted will be those who are already the most impoverished (anyone living paycheck to paycheck, and below), while anyone with established wealth can happily ride things out until the economy normalizes.

Small businesses will be crushed by this, eventual evictions of families will ensue due to missed payments. Basic quality of life necessities will be sacrificed or missed by many individuals...

And when stocks are at their lowest when we finally turn the corner on the covid, those who were strong enough to survive the squeeze will be left to buy or claim the sudden influx of business and market-share of their failed competitors.

In a nut shell, the rich are going to get relatively and absolutely richer as a result of coronavirus, due to the mere happenstance of economic inequality (not as a result of creating value for society). What makes this appalling to me is that it's the average middle class and below schmucks paying the actual price, while private corporations lap up the blood and sweat as pure profit (even my local grocery store seems to have jacked prices...).

How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart?

Pandemics like our present misfortune make it pretty obvious that we ought to accept obvious and mutually shared sacrifices in freedom (like the freedom to hold a parade), but it isn't always obvious where freedom should be traded for security.

Here's the ultimate test for Bernie supporters: will vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee? If no, then what makes you so sure others will do exactly that? — Relativist

The thought of a career corporate sycophant getting elected over the only candidate with wide spread grass-root support is repulsive, and the notion of a "fuck you" Trump vote does cross my mind...

Some say that Hillary's gender caused reduced voter turnout, but in my own political calculus it was her corporate status quo grubbing lack of moral and ideological scruples that made the prospect so repulsive (i.e: she is so out of touch with regular people she couldn't even pander correctly).

Biden is more of the same, just less intelligent. And isn't that exactly what establishment sponsors would like? A weak panderer who wins hearts and minds while happily making contradictory promises to corporate donors in wine cellars? Why not elect an actual house-cat who signs all documents and looks cute in holiday photos?

Yes, there will be fuck you Trump votes from Bernie supporters by the thousands if Biden wins the nomination. I would prefer Bernie say fuck it and run independently just to finally destroy the present incarnation of the "Democratic" party. If had a vote, it would be for a third party candidate. Some would call this a vote splitting betrayal, but the two party system (specifically their incorrigibly self-serving behavior) has created a lose lose situation.

Meanwhile, at the DNC:



We'll be dry in no time!

Imagine calling someone a communist for supporting universal healthcare during a pandemic event that does nothing but boost the stocks of privately owned pharmaceutical/health product producing companies (and as always, Campbell's soup), while depressing literally everything else in preparation for mass buyouts by those highest on the economic totem pole.

The fact that America's healthcare system cannot properly respond to this (and because the half-assed response it is preparing to deliver is going to cost us out the uninsured wazoo), wouldn't nationalizing healthcare and shoring up our priorities (i.e: not private profit) and cutting out the insurance middle man be a good thing?

And yet, here we sit, getting ready to thrust a daily-gaff-generating machine who reliably promises to do right by corporations, into the ring against the ultimate clown-foil (the clown who wound up being preferable to Hillary to one to many delegates) who seems to have worse of a chance than Hillary herself...

Sure, why not? Let's cut medicare, medicaid, and all other social security "entitlement" programs for that matter... Food stamps are theft. Let's bootstrap this bitch or what-have you. No malarkey! Man the grammar phones! Stop the tickers! Did you know he worked with Obama?

Prediction:

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination (if Biden is shoe-horned in), then Trump will win a second term.

This is arguably what happened in 2016...

The Wotan calling the Quetzalcoatl blasphemous...

You do hold a belief in God's non existence.

Belief is not something whimsical and fairy-tale, belief is a real function. It's like a hypothesis, or guess. — Qwex

So when physicists create and explore hypotheses - guesses - they accept and believe them?

I thought they proceeded to try and falsify them... Luckily, all possible gods cannot be falsified; it's a non-scientific claim to make...

Someone asks you, do you think God exists? You say I believe not so. You may not say that but it is applicable. — Qwex

How dare I fence-sit...

How dare I?

No babies aren't intrinsically atheistic. If Atheism is correct, there should be no God question. Saying no to God is good, but conflating that "no" to a now permenant position is stupid. — Qwex

Atheism isn't correct or incorrect, it merely a rejection of belief. We can say babies aren't atheists because they have no rejection capacity, and I'm fine with that.

Me: I said no and I mean no.

You; I said no, but I don't really mean no. I mean yes but by saying no. Don't believe me? Who cares, belief is for fools. — Qwex

Right. Believing that you have knowledge about some kind of god is foolish...

There is no reason in the world why "a lack of 'belief' in gods"should be considered "the only necessary and sufficient quality" to be considered an atheist. In fact, it isn't! — Frank Apisa

Why should 'a belief in gods' be considered the only necessary and sufficient quality to be considered a theist?

I'm not asking to imply an argument from etymology, but rather to point out that words are assigned meaning according to whim and use; they're not objective and discrete categories that necessarily or consistently order messy human ideas and beliefs.

One...EVERY person I have ever known or know of who chooses to use the descriptor "atheist" uses it because that person WANTS TO. They choose to uses it. It is their choice to use it. — Frank Apisa

Whether or not we're choosing our own labels is not too relevant (and if it is, then we're just discussing semantics).

Two, EVERY person I have ever known or know of chooses to do so because he/she either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does. — Frank Apisa

I'm a self-labeled atheist who does not have a belief either way in the existence or non existence of all possible gods. I am a borderline theological non-cognitivist; I don't think most statements that include the word "god" are fully coherent. If I am being picky, I will state my full position as follows: I lack belief in any and all possible god or god(s).

I do not meet either of those other necessities. I do NOT choose to use it or have it used of me...and I do NOT "believe" there are no gods nor that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

I am not an atheist. — Frank Apisa

Who is calling you an atheist? It's supposed to be a word that helps introduce a theological position, not an insult hurled at others.

Your objection comes from your own interpretation of all atheism as necessarily hard atheism. It's just not the case. You're free to point to agnosticism to introduce your own position, but keep in mind that there is a philosophical meaning of the term which you might be obfuscating in doing so.

The practical reason why atheism should be simply "lacks belief in god(s)" is because it is the tidiest pairing with the word theist, and describes the most non-theists in practice (and to a theist, what is a non-theist but a god-denying atheist?). In this sense, it simple means "not a theist". Hard atheism is not actually the most common form (I've explored this specific question quite a bit in the past during similar discussions). Only about 5-10% of atheists are willing to foolishly stand up and make the hard positive claim that no god(s) exist. Some will happily argue that Yaweh/Jehova/Jesus certainly are not existent gods, but then we're defining atheism with respect to specific theologies. (I'm a a hard a-Christian, but I'm not a hard a-Deist).

Unless you believe in god(s), you're some kind of atheist in my book. A soft one by the sounds of it. You're also at least a weak agnostic because (I'm assuming) you believe that we presently do not have evidence pertaining to god or god(s) with which to take a position.

Yes…one characteristic that ALL atheists share in common…is A LACK OF “BELIEF” THAT ANY GODS EXIST. ALL atheists lack a “belief” (in) god…but not everyone lacking that “belief” is an atheist. — Frank Apisa

Why not?

If lacking belief in gods is the only necessary and sufficient quality to be considered an atheist, how can someone lack belief in god(s) and NOT be an atheist?

I doubt the judge would think that phrase has some validity to it.

Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say. — chatterbears

Right. This was the example of when it doesn't work as a defense.

The first part of the scenario's statement is a good starting point and good question, but the end is unnecessary.

Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say. — chatterbears

What do you mean "unnecessary"? As long as "nobody's perfect" adds something to the statement, then it serves a purpose, and in this scenario it's a functional or rhetorical answer to the question it posed.

The person saying Bobby was a shit chess player was demonstrably wrong. And you can prove that by showing the games he won. Saying 'Nobody's perfect' after the rebuttal, is completely useless and adds nothing to the point. — chatterbears

It points out that failing to achieve absolute perfection is not the same as achieving overall failure.

Context.

Scenario A:

"I realize that this is my 19th offense your honor, but what can I say? Nobody's perfect..."

Scenario B:

"It's true Obama failed to revolutionize American health care, but does this mean his presidency was a failure? Nobody's perfect."

Scenario C:

"Bobby Fischer was a shit chess player because he lost some games"...

"Nobody's perfect".

Either another witch hunt is gone, or the constitution has yet again been subverted by partisan whim.

I guess we will never know either way...

No witnesses then...

The new Sekulow argument: "It's not fair that we never got to cross examine house witnesses, so we would spend months doing that if witnesses are called; also: please no witnesses".

Watching the Senate Trial. The House managers are arguing testimony and documents are still required. Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

Trump defense lawyers arguing that a senate trial is no place for witnesses and documents is a perspicuous admission that they believe Trump is guilty.

It's starting to become clear to me that if fox news did not exist, none of this would have been remotely possible...

For all the repetition that Dems are forced into, the defense team does absolutely nothing but repeat, repeat, repeat. It's like an avalanche of re-asserted falsehoods (at times, contradicting false-hoods).

Schrödinger's quid pro quo... Trump both extorted and did not extort Ukraine for help in the election, and only once we get access to documents and first hand witnesses, it's impossible to anticipate into which state the constitution will collapse into.

Does it really? — ssu

Assuming that being a massive chip leader within a modern market can be used as an asset to capture a greater share of the business and profits that are being conducted within it, then yes, a wealth tax does address the concentration of the means of wealth creation. It's pretty much implicit in a debt and fiat centric economy.

Yet that firms don't pay taxes or can avoid taxes, has nothing to do with a wealth tax. The trend has been especially in the IT companies to grow the share prices than to pay dividends. A good way to stop this would be to put limits to stock buy backs. Not to create a wealth tax. — ssu

IT companies grow stock prices because it makes no sense for them to waste cash on dividends, they're all growth and that requires reinvestment (which is one of the ways that companies keep their retained earnings/capital gains figures low, thereby dodging the tax man). (companies give dividends to make their stocks more appealing and bolster their market cap, but it also tends to mean they have no real good investments/expansions to make).

Limiting stock buybacks is interesting, but it's only a half step; ideally the people via the government would have their own stake in the ultra-massive companies that tacitly run the economy, and reap the vast majority of the rewards.

Besides, the US had one of the most highest corporate tax rates in the World. Trump brought it down to 21% from 35%. That's still a bit more higher than here (20%). — ssu

I don't see how having a high corporate tax is meaningful if it can be so easily mitigated. And if the government itself had a stake in Amazon, then the dividends and stock growth would benefit them either way.

It's either this, or we're going to eventually give up so much power to so few individuals and corporations that we will eventually have to go through a massive round of anti-trust actions (which, I'm pretty sure, will fuck the markets up more than a reasonable wealth tax ever could). I don't know exactly how best to do this wealth redistribution, but short of change to our current trajectory, I don't see any other feasible option to avoid that unrest and failure territory that @frank is afraid of.

But right now most of the government's income comes from the top 10 percent of earners: 70 percent of total taxes.

Wouldn't an exodus of the elite leave us a poorer country? — frank

If the elite are indeed vacuuming up most of the wealth that is created in America, then their departure would have the long term benefit of creating opportunity for those left behind. Having a bunch of rich people is nice because they spend money, but if they don't pay taxes (and if the money they spend is just quickly half-lifed back into corporate coffers anyhow), it's not that advantageous.

So what if the top 10% of earners (which is a much broader category than income over 32 million) pay 70% of the taxes (they have more than 70% of the total wealth, after-all) . The top 1% alone has roughly 40% of all the wealth, so there would almost certainly be short-term deficits, but in the long run, a greater share of the newly created wealth would be more broadly distributed, and a greater share of it would be payed as taxes. I guess the real question then becomes "How much wealth do the ultra-wealthy create just by existing as a private economic.investment entity/equity holder within an economy?".

One of the casualties of peak oil will be plastic. How do you see disposable plastic being replaced?

I see an increase in natural disasters, war, migration, and social unrest: most of the ingredients of the bronze age collapse. That might be why I see collapse, though, Ive been reading and thinking about the bronze age for a while now. — frank

We can go back to glass and recycle-culture if necessary, but really there are all sorts of possible technologies that we can and likely will discover. Using biological engineering to grow organic and bio-degradable mass packaging is one promising technology. But you're right to worry: if we don't get a plastic replacement then we will have to overhaul the way we distribute goods (it will need to be completely decentralized).

Regarding societal collapse, I choose to remain optimistic.

The problem seems to be about the amount he took from his company, that the amount was unethical. — Brett

Ultimately, the compensation and working conditions of associates are closely related to how much money Besos and the Waltons were able to extract in the first place. The amount of money extracted, how it was extracted, and how it was spent all have to do with the distribution of boons and burdens within society. Fairness essentially (which normally isn't very persuasive, unless the disparity becomes especially egregious)...

Okay, that’s an answer, which is different from what VagabondSpectre gave which was more about how he spent it. — Brett

Ultimately my point is about how it is distributed. One libertarian argument is that societal pressure will force Besos to give most of his money to charity, but this is not at all comparable to the benefits that a significant wealth tax would bring (especially if his charity is all about getting rich people into space).

:up:

As with Walmart, there can actually be a very high ethical cost to achieve such low prices...

Why do you think it’s unethical? — Brett

The short answer is wealth inequality within and without the United States. It gives him incredible power that he can either abuse or waste. He could spend all his money trying to get to space, and even succeed, while others cannot afford chemo therapy.

Something or someone will give...

I say good riddance to bad rubbish regarding the elite exodus.

Where you see future collapse, I see change and opportunity (an industry shakeout) and corporations likely see this too. For example, whoever can most successfully diversify into the alternatives that climate change and the end of oil demand, will see a market where most of the competition has relatively quickly collapsed, and that they are in the best position to expand and capture a greater overall "market share". I want this adaptive process to occur, but I don't want one or two mega-corporations controlling everything at the end of it. And if one or two mega-corporations is how it has to be for whatever reason, then its stock and stake holders should not be just a small handful of wealthy elite.

So if Amazon et al left quickly enough, they would leave behind their market share (their customers in America) which would create an absolute bonanza for other retail/sales businesses and logistics firms (firms and businesses that create value for the society it serves, rather than trying to create the most value for themselves). Amazon is actually an amazingly efficient business, but the amount of money Besos can extract from it is unethical

At the obvious risk of sounding like Karl Marx, I think that the crucial value of a wealth tax is that it addresses concentrated ownership of the means of wealth production.

Money makes money in today's world (eg: economies of scale, automation, investment power, interest), and the market does not regulate itself in such a way that it is immune to catastrophe (the catastrophe of economically dispossessed masses, or a world run by corporate super-powers chasing self-interest regardless of any ethical ramifications). The meme that Amazon payed 0 dollars in corporate tax exemplifies this; they have so much influence and sway that they can basically make demands from cities or nations in exchange for the divine mana of jobs. We can try to legislate against them, and in game-like fashion they will still get away with whatever they can. Given the impending economic vulnerabilities of climate change and the end of oil, governments and the working class is set to lose even more bargaining power against them. At some point, the unequal power dynamic between the working class/governments and the super-entities they depend on to maintain the status quo, begins to undermine and insurrect functional democracy (we're already about 90% of the way down that road).

What will give first?

The reason why the amount was 200K in USD was that then 5 Finnish marks was 1 USD or so, hence that 200K was 1 million Finnish marks. Hence the tax was deliberately a tax on millionaires. If you got wealth worth a million FIM, why shouldn't you pay? Millionaires ought to pay wealth tax!!! And now a labour union would introduce a wealth tax on everything over 100K Euros with the exception, of course, of one's home. Simple reason, the vast majority of people don't have wealth over 100K besides their home.

And let's make another thought experiment: Let's assume that everybody had to pay a wealth tax. So if your unemployed and your home is foreclosed, but you still have this minibus (that the government decides is worth 9K) where you sleep, well, have to pay 90$. Wouldn't that sound fair? — ssu

I get what you're saying, but I'm not interested in over-taxation. You're making a slippery-slope argument that cannot aptly be applied to Bernie's plan. Yes, wealth taxes have been poorly coded and implemented in the past, and failed, and yes it would be a bad thing to burden the poor even more than they already are...

Accounting for some amount of inflation, a similar figure to Bernie's opening number would be nearly 100 million Finnish marks (Shirley would have a hard time drumming up sympathy at that level). I agree with the principle that it is unproductive to tax existing wealth, but after a certain threshold of wealth concentration, it becomes unproductive *not* to tax it. The earning power of the middle and lower class isn't going anywhere, while corporate and upper-elite profits have never grown faster.

In short, sometimes when we let the chips fall where they may, things get so screwed up that we need a do-over, whether by vote or by force. Once Besos has a personal wealth of over 1 trillion dollars (probably will never happen because he will start giving it away to charities and causes of his choosing), would you agree with me then?

If we one day find ourselves utterly without lands and viable livelihoods due to the extraordinary concentration of ownership, would you participate in efforts to redistribute wealth? I know this sounds outlandish, but as automation and AI advance, human labor is fast becoming uneconomical. What will we do once Amazon and Walmart no longer require human associates to operate their businesses? Yang proposes a universal basic income (after-all, people people buy less stuff as unemployment and underemployment rise) so that we can carry on existing as we are now, but Bernie's plan seems more direct.

If not wealth redistribution, then what? Even if we amply apply anti-trust measures to the corporations that are essentially more powerful than some nation states, there's still no promise that wealth owned by them will trickle down to the rest of us. I get that impeding on individual ownership rights is a serious action, but I see no other remedy. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game, but it is not an infinite sum game either. In Finland you have universal healthcare, but American's don't. Raising taxes on everyone could pay for it, but this would diminish the earnings of the bottom class even further. A wealth tax on the actually rich could pay for it, among other things (such as education). Is there really so big a difference between slowing the flow of gold to the dragon (income tax) vs reducing the size of its hoard (wealth tax)?

I think that the tax revenues of a wealth tax would be dismal and likely be squandered of in foreign wars or in a currency crisis when the rich scramble away with their money. So it's not a great idea in my view. — ssu

Bernie's estimate is something like 4 trillion in 10 years. The rich are always going to scramble away with their money. Always. That's how most of them got rich (not by creating wealth, but by winning and keeping it better). Washington admin failures not withstanding, at least this way the middle and lower classes get something.

Wealth taxes are a great idea; not at all populism.

I'm not sure from which lands you hail, but it sounds like a tax on wealth above 200k is obviously stupid (200k is nowhere near "rich"; not even visible to the naked eye when compared with the wealth of the "super rich"). Bernie wants a 1% tax starting at wealth above 32 million USD. A wealth tax in America would simply not touch farmers (who are already heavily subsidized), and if you had inherited some lands worth millions, you would have a much harder time gaining sympathy for the situation you were in. I'm straining to make the link between your own anecdote and American wealth gaps + Bernie's plan.

Hoarded wealth doesn't create new wealth, it just helps with winning larger shares of the newly created wealth, and therein lies the problem.

Not true, the claims at stake are of objective truth, a specific social relation and power — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you mean by "a specific social relation and power"?

If you mean something like "the power of whites", then you're not being specific at all. That said, my point about the post modern rejection of objectivity is meant to convey my criticism that intersectional feminist ideas are entirely bound up in their own starting assumptions, and the untested interpretations people choose to make of them.

For instance, if you would say that it's objectively true that only white people can be racist, and that all white people benefit from white supremacy....

How can I disagree? The way you define racism might make it tautologically true that all white people are racist; and you might get there purely by statistical generalization.

The argument isn't "social constructs" are some instance of a casual force which institutes one specific event over another (such as pressing a button causing a door to open), but referencing the fact our social organisation is formed in a certain way (we have built our society this way, in how we have socially organised), constructed out of the behaviours we do, rather than being an afterthought of some initial state. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, the goings-on in and of society emerge from the collective sum of the actions that individuals take. But this doesn't amount to anything specific. In fact, it's stupendously vague.

It's like racism, inequality,and suffering are merely abstract artful concepts that get casually bandied into pleasing or evocative statements. There are indeed "constructed systems" in our midst that are related to the statistical disparities we both rebuke, but you need to coherently point them out for us to do anything about them. "Down with patriarchy/whiteness" campaigns don't come with useful or coherent suggestions, and they mostly serve to incite feelings of guilt or anger from those who buy into them, and confusion or resentment from those who reject them.

I don't like Zionism because it presupposes that land currently belonging to native inhabitants is the rightful property of a religious authoritarian state, and because it is used to fuel the current occupation of Palestine, and the systematic theft of land from, and removal of, the Palestinian people.

I'm against conquering lands and peoples, and I'm against theocracies.

Am I anti-semetic?

I feel like I could write a novel-length post on this subject, so I'll be intentionally brief.

Intersectional feminist theory draws from the post-modern idea of "deconstructionism" (see: social constructs). It aims to "deconstruct" the harmful systems (of oppression) that have presumably been responsible for all of forms inequality perpetuation.

Within the informal systems analysis that this perspective generates, demographic identities (abstractly) receive labels like "victim" and "oppressor", and things like "the progressive stack" and "the problem of whiteness" naturally and casually emerge. The problem in this approach, like with most of post-modernism, is that it eschews any idea of objective truth or reality, replacing it with a self-referential spiral that can take people wherever they wish to go. The opening premise that all injustice is the result of social constructs (and the ensuing premises that state races/genders monolithically maintain these constructs) can always be used as a circular appeal to hypothesize about why X person or Y group or Z idea is bad because it has strong emotional and moralistic appeal (and where it becomes a sign of guilt to question the premise).

Ironically, in setting out to eliminate inequality and inter-group prejudice, they foment confusion, anger, and the reciprocation of apparent prejudice (see: why the alt right exists). If it wasn't so insidious and tragic, this would all make for excellent laughing stock...

There was no crime. There was no wrong doing. — NOS4A2

Clearly there was, and regardless of how much desire there has been for a Trump impeachment, the impeachment trial is in fact about justice. Trying to obfuscate Trump's crimes is unpatriotic at best...

:up:

All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

The historic...

What is this? Government by Torah?

Palestine belongs to the Jewish religion I guess. The homes and lives of the illegal aliens who have been squatting there for the last 1000 years have no rights I guess...

Narcissism of small differences. — 180 Proof

I once asked my (Jehova's witness) grandmother why she thought all the other churches were wrong...

She said "because they think Jesus died on a cross!"....

"So what" was my response...

"If they're wrong about that then they're probably wrong about other things too"...

And so I became an atheist within the decade..

Expect Trump to address the nation. — NOS4A2

What's he going to say? How, because Israel and Saudi Arabia are such great friends, we should destroy Iran for them? Is doing to Iran what was done to Afghanistan and Iraq really the answer? If Trump declares war, won't he be demonstrating how unstable of a leader he is?

Apparently the generals gave him the option of killing Seulemani only as an "extreme option" to make the others seem more reasonable. Why did Trump undo the work Obama had done to make peace with Iran?

I think you will find Americans are decidedly against the notion of going to war with Iran...

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

Sometimes a Trump fuck-up is just a Trump fuck-up...

But for all the ways the anti-Trumpers contort their principles in order to condemn him in every possible way, Trump supporters put on a much more grotesque display of hypocrisy and ignorance.

Why do they scramble to defend everything Trump has ever done or said? Clearly, if anything, Trump has directly robbed America of what dignity and respect it had left. Are they just pot committed? Stubborn?

I thought you guys were "patriots", not Patriot's fan boys..

"Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”

Trump criticizing Obama back in 2011...

I think filling your head with dreams of coming wars and Adolph Trump suffices enough to keep you entertained — NOS4A2

So more irrelevant nonsense then?