In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.

He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...

What seeds of conflict did he sow? — Fooloso4

Again, since 2009 onward all the people I've named from the Biden administration including Biden himself have been deeply involved in project Ukraine.

That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc.

Perhaps they thought the Russians were bluffing, but they knowingly invited conflict by ignoring them.

The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore what is going on. — Fooloso4

Perhaps that is true, but I'm not aware of any members of the Trump administration handing out cookies on the Maidan.

To many people's dismay, Putin and Trump kinda liked each other. Regardless of what one thinks of that, it didn't appear to me that the issue was being pressed under Trump.

I'm open to being corrected. I'm not here to defend Trump. What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right.

So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it? — Fooloso4

No, the US blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, and expressed its unconditional support for Israel.

Again, I view the US as complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing.

His strategy vis-á-vis NATO was probably to pressure the Europeans to stop freeloading. I don't think he would actually leave. And honestly in terms of European freeloading behavior he has a point.

The US is going to have (basically is already having) a huge problem keeping all its interests afloat now that shit is hitting the fan. If Europe with a combined GDP roughly equal to the US can't even maintain a credible deterrent towards Russia, which has 1/10th that GDP, something is wrong.

2) he's going to withdraw form NATO and basically join BRIC. No, it doesn't make much sense, but such is life. :grin: — frank

That does sound a bit far-fetched.

Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office? — Fooloso4

Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. I think there's a non-trivial chance that it wouldn't have happened under Trump, but the question is whether Trump would be able to go against the neocon establishment ("the Blob") - something Obama was unable to do (despite wanting and trying to do so).

As for Biden, he is the Blob.

Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014? — Fooloso4

Biden is obviously not responsible for Putin's decisions, but in a way, yes. He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict, together with Nuland, Sullivan, Blinken - the whole gang. Ukraine was their project, they pushed Russia and refused dialogue, and they turned it into a complete and utter disaster.

In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it. — Fooloso4

Evidence? :brow:

The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret.

If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame? — Fooloso4

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. Of course Biden would deserve no credit for it. As far as I am concerned, the US is complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing as we speak.

Why is that ironic? — Fooloso4

Because the article linked was talking about how the Russians might attack if Trump gets elected. The Russians in fact attacked when Biden came into office, likely due to his long-lasting involvement in Ukraine.

And his involvement is not any kind of secret. He was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio as VP under Obama, from the period 2009-present (now as president, obviously), including when the 2014 coup happened. Nuland was famously handing out cookies on the Maidan, caught on tape designing the post-coup government, etc. Sullivan and Blinken have also been deeply involved in Ukraine.

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear.

Ironically, Putin attacked Ukraine when Biden became president, most likely due to Biden's long standing involvement in Ukraine. His entire administration consists of Ukraine hawks. NATO expansion into Ukraine is their project.

Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu, the loss of the Persian Gulf, etc.

Despite its many faults, the Trump administration really did a much better job at foreign politics.


The idea that Russia will attack Europe is extremely silly for several reasons. The Germans are probably afraid Trump will be elected president because Trump realized the Europeans are in a shitty bargaining position and started to press them. He was exactly right about that. That was actually a good move on Trump's part.

It's not hard to see why a lot of people support Trump. The Biden administration has been an absolute dumpster fire. If Biden is the lesser of those two evils, it's only by a small margin. I don't know much about American domestic politics, but in terms of foreign policy the Biden administration did way worse.

It's the classic Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich. Both options are awful. The other side isn't a bunch of deplorables because they differ in taste of awful.

So calling people grifters is not taking the moral high ground? — unenlightened

No, not really. Recognizing something is as a grift has nothing to do with morality.

None of that has anything to do with what I said, though.

That would be a stronger argument if it were not the sceptics that framed it that way. — unenlightened

I don't think that's an accurate way of describing the skepticism expressed in this thread at all.

This isn't a question about caring for others at all.

Attempts to frame it as such is simply a transparent attempt at claiming a moral high ground by smearing the other side as being selfish and immoral. It's intellectual poverty.

That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

My thoughts exactly. :pray:

“The huge human cost of the climate crisis is being ignored. We hear of disaster relief, but the long-term costs are not being addressed. We must provide lasting support for people impacted by climate change,” said Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.

In his report to the Council, the Special Rapporteur outlined a six-point plan to address the human rights aspects of the problem.

Communities in vulnerable situations, including indigenous peoples, peasants, migrants, children, women, persons with disabilities and people living in small island developing States and least developed countries, are disproportionately at risk from adverse impacts of climate change, the UN expert said.

He also highlighted the many non-economic losses stemming from climate change and its consequences. “For instance, in countries where I have worked and visited in the Pacific for the last 20 years, people are witnessing the graves of their loved ones being washed out into the sea,” the expert said.

Fry noted that the key element of his plan would be to investigate the plight of people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The expert said that of 59.1 million people internally displaced in 2021 across the world, most were displaced by climate-related disasters. He noted that the number was far higher than displacement due to armed conflict.

How does this not sound extremely grifty?

People have had to deal with the effects of all kinds of change for as long as humanity has existed, but now there are people in need for "long-lasting support" and this bozo needs your money.

Subsidizing people for living in unsustainable conditions is a terrible idea, and I have no doubt a large part of that money would disappear into the pockets of, you guessed it, grifters.

If two centimeters of sea-level rise means you and your family are washed away, maybe think about moving. In fact, maybe you should have thought about moving yesterday. But even so, those two centimeters will take a couple decades - there's still time!

Treating people like children and helpless victims; it's a funny tendency within modern societies and apparently also in supranational organisations. Maybe a form of subconscious savior complex?

Personally, I'm a bit more cynical, as you might have guessed. This is grifty language, used to manipulate and guilt-trip people, which sadly is all too common in these forms of charity.

The only one screaming endlessly here is you, ...

"They" the media? choose a child because that makes it more believable? — unenlightened

Yes. Why would a climate apocalypse unfolding before our very eyes need to be "made more believable"?

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism.

Further, fearmongering and targeting children is a deliberate and grifty tactic.

Not the end of the world, just the end of your world. — unenlightened

I think you know little of my world, but don't you think this is a bit ironic considering the tone you've chosen?

It's psychobabble Jim, not pseudo-religious hooey, [...] — unenlightened

Gotcha.

[...] and definitely not grift. — unenlightened

No, I wasn't calling you a grifter. But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift.

Well, another element of the climate grift was how they chose a child, Greta, as their spokesperson. That's a pretty classic example of grift.

Cramped reactions like these only suggest the aforementioned intellectual foetal position to me, to be honest.

I wasn't referring to any quotes from NASA. I was referring to the very thing you linked me.

There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world. — unenlightened

If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is.

Like with all things (and good grifts) there's a core of truth somewhere to be found. That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short).

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.

Doomsday prophecies and claims to esotheric knowledge are signals to me that certain folks have been sent off the deep end.

The climate grift is just a lightning rod designed to keep your attention fixed on a problem that, supposedly, we are all responsible for, while keeping your attention away from problems that have clearly discernable causes, usually involving powerful lobbies and a lot of money.

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people?

I've noticed that people have been taking issue with the word 'genocide' being used to describe Israel's actions in Gaza.

I would like to remind everyone that the Srebrenica massacre that took place during the Bosnian war which involved the murder of 8,372 Bosniak Muslims was labeled a genocide by both the ICC and the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), and the people responsible were convicted for genocide.

I hope this illustrates how Israel's actions are well within the scope of what could be considered a genocide, especially coupled with the rhetoric of Israeli officials and Israel's previous conduct.

Where are you getting your news? Tik tok? Lies. — BitconnectCarlos

From IDF documents and Israeli spokespeople themselves, actually. :brow:

But we also need to be honest that neither of us are in the IDF operations room and have a clear idea of Israel's proportionality policy. — BitconnectCarlos

That idea is quite clear, actually.

Israel in a few weeks killed more civilians than the Russians did in a year, while the Russians are conducting a massive operation and Israel is operating in an area the size of a post stamp.

Israel is massacring civilians on purpose, because it cannot effectively hurt Hamas.

It's established Israeli military "strategy", which they call the Dahiya doctrine. The murder of disproportionate amounts of civilians in order to pressure Hamas is an explicit part of that doctrine.

Let's not mince words here.

Henry Fonda is not responsible for the pregnancy, while the mother is, which is why the analogy doesn't hold water.

Which part is simple minded? — Paine

:lol: Come on, man.

And for the record: that the type of simple-mindedness that inhabits American politics has such a presence on a philosophy forum is a traversty in and of itself.

You charge me with complicity in a destructive force and then gloat about your view from a commanding height. — Paine

Indeed.

For the most part, I am just observing. Like I've said many times before, all of this would simply be amusing if it wasn't for the widespread suffering it creates.

Bla, bla. Whinge a little harder about the mess you yourselves create.

If you have convinced yourself that feeling disdain for roughly 80 million people is normal, I doubt I'll be able to change your mind. Personally, I think it suggests disconnection from reality.

For now, said political opponent poses a larger threat to their power than the lack of trust and impoverishment of the people. However, those two will eventually converge at which point it's curtains for the system.

Such change seems to always happen through oddballs like Trump (and for us, Wilders), but ultimately they're a symptom of the real problem that is the system.

In a sense it's a good thing that change now seems to be on the horizon, because the longer it is forestalled, the more extreme the eventual swing will be.

I wonder if people realize that this thread in a nutshell explains why Trump might win a second term.

The disdain for ordinary people, the "all means necessary" approach confirming one's own moral bankrutpcy while pretending to have a moral high ground, etc.

We saw the same thing in the Netherlands, though a little less extreme.

The irony of it all is amusing, but honestly it makes me want to wash.

American politics is comedy gold.

You've got a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Don't let the fact that this time around they pick the turd sandwich collapse your world view.

-

Yet philosphy should be welcomed and encouraged on a philosophy forum. — ssu

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss [...] — Tzeentch

This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss, rather than throwing up semantic smokescreens. What you're doing now smells of deflection and sophistry.

Which of the two? I think they're both pretty strong, but in the case of the AIDS video, it's almost like the reporters managed to find the smoking gun.

You think playing coy is a way to be taken seriously on this forum?

Ask me three honest and straightforward questions, and I'll answer them for you. I have no patience for whatever game you're trying to play.