More peace in the Middle East. A bunch of know-nothing, inexperienced rubes did more to secure peace in a few years than decades of smooth-talking intellectuals.

Bahrain has become the latest Arab nation to agree to normalize ties with Israel as part of a broader diplomatic push by President Donald Trump and his administration to fully integrate the Jewish state into the Middle East.

Trump announced the agreement on Friday, following a three-way phone call he had with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. The three leaders also issued a brief six-paragraph joint statement, attesting to the deal.

Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner noted that the agreement is the second Israel has reached with an Arab country in 30 days after having made peace with only two Arab nations — Egypt and Jordan — in 72 years of its independence.

https://apnews.com/e21e371f1b406b209f93df5973d1fa46

Unemployment is down to 8.4%, 1.4 million jobs were added to the economy in August, so all his opponents are left to play is “Trump said...”.

But Trump said the right things according to a gold star husband whose wife was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria.

That voice from the doorway, though, was familiar because it belonged to a man I had seen on television countless times: President Donald Trump. As he approached me, he extended his right hand to shake mine, placed his left hand on my shoulder, looked me in my eyes and said, “I’m so sorry for your loss. Shannon was an amazing woman and warrior.”

I still have no idea what exactly I said in response. The days after my wife, Shannon Kent, was killed by a suicide bomber during a mission to fight ISIS in Syria in January 2019 had been such a blur and, anyway, I’d never met a president before.

But (I am told) I thanked President Trump, and I remember he held eye contact with me. And in his eyes, I could see — unmistakably — the same pain I’d seen in the eyes of other senior leaders who ultimately bear the responsibility for sending men and women to their deaths in combat.

As we unclasped our hands, the president said to me, “Shannon was the real deal, we are lucky to have people like her willing to go out there and face evil for us.” He kept his arm on my shoulder.

Together, as we waited for the plane that would bring Shannon home, we spent another 20 minutes talking about my wife, our children and what an amazing mother, wife, and soldier she was. It was clear to me that President Trump truly cared — not just that Shannon and three others had been killed in Syria, but about who Shannon and the three others were as people.

Then the president did something that I did not expect: he asked me what I thought about Syria and what we were doing there. He talked to me — a Green Beret and a combat veteran, not some expert at the Pentagon or a think tank — about the wisdom leaving troops in harm's way once ISIS’s territorial caliphate had been destroyed. It was clear to me that he was deeply conflicted about whether staying in Syria was worth the lives lost — Shannon and her three colleagues — on that day in January.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-came-dover-after-my-wife-was-killed-fighting-isis-ncna1239425

Credit to NBC for even allowing the op-ed, but it shows a man brave enough to stand by his story while the military industrial complex feeds cowardly gossip from the shadows.

First, let's hold off on talking about free will here. I'm requesting that someone, anyone respond to the issue of "control of desires". I'm denying that we don't have control of our desires. Do we or do we not have control of our desires. Please answer this.

We certainly do for the simple reason that nothing else controls our desires. Your desires are produced, regulated, and controlled by only one being. Even the seemingly automatic movements, such as the heart beat, are produced, regulated and controlled by the same being.

One can frame all the social sciences as "pseudoscientifc", but that doesn't mean social sciences shouldn't be taught.

That doesn’t mean it should be taught, either. But I was speaking of critical race theory in particular, which largely rejects the idea that scholarship should be or could be “neutral” and “objective”.

Framed as "divisive, anti-American propaganda".
It boggles the mind to think of what this guy's concept of "American" might be.

He should have thrown in “pseudoscientific nonsense”, as well.

Critical race theory extirpated from federal training from here on out, according to a new memorandum. Good riddance.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf

First the UAE and Isreali peace deal, now the Belgrade–Pristina deal, and the anti-Trump brigade can’t get past the gossip, palace intrigue, and other deep-state dinner theater. Love it.

I like the quote often attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

I think this is true, at least in the common sense of the term “evil”. Though I suspect some philosophers would justify their waffling and inaction with a stern analysis of what evil means, by then the evil would have prevailed.

But in this administration, that is his job, to protect the President of the US from legal charges, indictments and from impeachment etc.

The problem is Barr was right, Blitzer was wrong, the Twitter user was wrong, as were those who drank that Koop-aid.

As a matter of federal law the US offers provisional ballots. Depending on the state, if an absentee or mail-in vote does not arrive and is thus not counted, a voter can request a provisional ballot instead. None of this is illegal.

Can someone who requested an absentee ballot vote on Election Day?
State law dictates whether voters who were issued an absentee ballot are permitted to vote at a polling place on Election Day. In some cases, such as when the absentee ballot did not arrive and therefore was not counted, a provisional ballot may be available.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/lb-provisional-ballots.aspx

Track your ballot

Most states, with help from USPS, give your ballot a code. After you've requested it, you can go to the Secretary of State's website and see where you are in the process.

It looks sort of like ordering a pizza from Domino's and being able to see on your phone when it comes out of the oven. Or filing your taxes! The federal government notifies you about that, too.

But not all states offer this feature. And they're not all Southern states opposed to mail-in voting you might suspect. You might expect Texas to require an excuse for voting by mail and not offer a tracking system. But New York also requires an excuse and also does not track your ballot. Connecticut is an example of a Northeast state temporarily allowing absentee voting by mail, although they do not track your ballot.

If it doesn't arrive, you might want to head to your polling place and explore your options, which are probably filling out a provisional ballot.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15/politics/what-matters-august-14/index.html

“B-b-but muh banana republic”

There is too much zero-sum thinking in McIntosh’s argument. The idea that racism against a dark-skinned person is a benefit to a light-skinned person is seemingly born from this bias. Comments such as “In proportion as my racial group was being made confident, comfortable and oblivious, other groups were likely being made unconfident, uncomfortable and alienated” is further evidence of this.

If this were true, it goes to follow that “decreases in perceived bias against Blacks over the past six decades are associated with increases in perceived bias against Whites”. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41613491?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).

But since zero-sum situations are rare the existence of “white privilege” can be seriously questioned. I cannot see it as being true that resources gained by light-skinned people are matched by a corresponding loss to dark-skinned people, just as decreases in the bias against dark-skinned people cannot be shown to lead to increases in bias against light-skinned people. I think the opposite is the case. Emancipation, civil rights, justice, have expanded in tandem with the expansion of wealth, safety freedom and opportunity of our fellow citizens.

To me, it would have made more sense to argue the opposite: that no one benefits from racism, that it is pernicious not only to the victims of it, but also to it’s self-proclaimed beneficiaries.

We are all subject to zero-sum thinking, and I think this reflects in the notion of knowledge as privilege, specifically the idea that one man’s inability to access information (the Syrian), is another man’s privilege (the westerner).

We should indeed champion universal free thought and speech for everyone, but I do not think it is a privilege that another is denied access to such information, because it robs us all of the chance to get his opinion of it. This is true of all injustice and ill-treatment. We are all worse off, not privileged, because of another’s lack of access to information and education.

Twitterati are trying to say that verifying the tabulation of your vote, re-voting if necessary, is voting twice, as if it will count as two votes. They are blaming Trump for encouraging voter fraud when in fact he’s encouraging us to make sure our vote is counted. It’s hilarious too because they are now admitting the potential for fraud after months of claiming there was none.

In some states you can vote numerous times, for instance if one wants to change his vote. Of course, they only count as one vote.

Trump goaded them into adopting a desperate dumpster fire of a narrative.

A nice read, thanks.

Tacitus wrote of Nerva and Trajan’s rule:

“I have reserved for my old age, if life is spared to me, the reigns of the sainted Nerva and of the Emperor Trajan, which afford a richer and withal a safer theme: for it is the rare fortune of these days that a man may think what he likes and say what he thinks.”

I think, from this account, we can see the genesis of liberty.

So you’re pro life and the state deciding wether or not women are allowed to abort a pregnancy?

I am opposed to abortion but do not think the state should decide.

Fetus’ are human beings in their earliest stages of life. We all used to be one. And we accept that there may be a conflict of rights between a person in its earliest stages and post birth. It certainly is a problem and an argument worth having. What pronouns we use might not be as important a topic.

What the hell are you implying? You think that it's better that something like slavery is abolished ONLY AFTER A VICIOUS BLOODY CIVIL WAR?

I think it's far better when reforms can be done WITHOUT violence, without people getting killed, without extremist delusional and vitriolic opposite views taking over political discourse... and oh wait, that has been possible in many countries.

No, that’s not what I’m “implying”. No need to reach for things I never said.

Wrong. It's not.

Wrong, it is. Opposition and exclusion occur in politics all the time. Only an open conflict of ideas and principles can produce any clarity, especially in a two-party system. Again, compromise cannot exist on some issues, and that’s why people like MLK reviled the moderate.

My results suggested “a slight automatic preference for African Americans over European Americans”. Shouldn’t implicit bias force me to unknowingly favor my own category over another?

In politics, polarization (or polarisation) refers to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Think of it as views and attitudes going to the opposite polar extremes without no middle ground.

So what's the problem?

The problem is polarization doesn’t necessarily beget, nor is it a one-to-one ratio with, violence. As you tried to show, a polarizing issue such as slavery can lead to a relatively bloodless repudiation of unjust treatment of other human beings (though we know that’s not the full story). But whether there is violence or not, we are so much the better for polarization in the cases of slavery, civil rights, because one side lost that argument. MLK, the abolitionists, were labelled extremist. They were right. Their opponents and the compromisers were wrong.

So NOS4A2, you think that political views becoming more extreme, more apart, will help the representative democracy to function better?

No, ssu, I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. There is no compromise when it comes to issues such as slavery and civil rights.

Since their Civil War, the English have been able to solve the problems in their society without large scale violence. Ok, there's Ireland and some colonies that were problematic, but otherwise...

The leader of the Republican Commonwealth still got a statue in the monarchy:

I don’t understand polarization to mean violence. Maybe there is something lost in translation here.

Funny, coming from someone who so fervently supports a man who has a habit of circumventing Congress whenever they become inconvenient.

Lamenting a divided government from a man who fervently hates his own president. Funny.

So you're a progressive now?

The more divided a government is the more ineffectual it can be, and who benefits from an ineffectual government? Some must, perhaps your employer?

No I’m not a progressive.

Politics isn’t about creating some sort of uni-party, or else you might prefer the politics of North Korea, which is about as unified as can be. Politics is about division.

Enjoy Canada for all what it gives you, NOS4A2. :up:

Besides nature, it’s given me a bloated government, institutional identity politics and high taxes.

Let's see how well the centrist / right-wing duopoly can answer to Americans in the future.

Far better than a minority government who has to wheel and deal with losing parties who have somehow achieved power.

Abolishing slavery in the UK: 0 deaths.
Abolishing slavery in the US: perhaps 600 000 - 1 000 000 dead.

Right, I’m sure there was zero polarization on the issue in the UK.

I remember the feds made Ferguson a no-fly zone during the riots because they didn’t want media to film the violence. Out of sight out of mind.

I take the view of Popper that the two-party system is the superior one. I don’t see it as a monster. I see it as a boon.

And I believe polarization is an important aspect of a country’s progression and politics. The polarization surrounding civil rights, slavery, war has amounted to a better future for all.

The other week Nancy Pelosi said

“ We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States”.

She continued: “ They’re doing everything they can [to] suppress the vote with their actions, scare people, intimidate by saying law enforcement will be there, diminish the role of the postal system in all of this. It’s really actually shameful. Enemies of the state.”

She’s the speaker of house and she called the Trump administration “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state”.

Biden called Trump an existential threat to America.

Kamala Harris said the “protests” won’t stop.



This is, according to popular opinion, an incitement to violence. So in the spirit of politics I am glad Trump has decided to flip it on them.

You do realize that one can know the biological shortcomings of race as a purported biological category, yet still proceed to meaningfully categorize a group of individuals based upon skin color, and continue doing so without ever devaluing them based upon skin color...

Right?

You can superficially categorize people, sure, but here we are applying zero-sum thinking to outmoded taxonomies. Perverted racialist, and I would argue white supremacist, thinking is occurring here.

But will the Democrats put the demonstrators in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. Government?
Will the Democrats defund Police Departments all across America?
Will they pass federal legislation to reduce law enforcement nationwide?
Will they make every city look like Democrat-run Portland, Oregon?

Do you genuinely think that a Biden administration will do all those things once in power?

I try not to make a habit of predicting the future, but no, I do not believe that. Then again Biden’s political triangulation, his wind-sock approach to politics, hints that he’ll only do what keeps him in power, even if that means satiating the desires of the radical wing of his party.

An AR-15 is a civilian rifle.

Video and images show he was there to protect businesses, clean up the mess, and to offer medical attention. He worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha the day before. Only when the teenager was violently attacked by grown men, one of them holding a pistol, did he unleash fury.

Politics has always been about division in my books.

I’m not sure Trump’s comments are so outrageous, especially given the unrest, violence and destruction of property occurring right now. No amount of hand waving can make that disappear. It is happening. It exists.

I think the Democrat’s deserve Trump’s shade. They’ve reviled him, obstructed him, and spread hatred about him at almost every step of his presidency. But my point isn’t that one politician or another causes division. My point is that a majority of people inform themselves through the bits and pieces offered to us by an unethical, activist media, and not from politicians. This is the source of your division.

As for the tragic shooting in Kenosha, I think it was self-defence. A man rushed him, went for his gun, but he protected himself. A mob chased him, tried to beat him, came at him with a gun, and they payed for it dearly. This is how easily things escalate when you are given free reign to destroy communities and the properties of innocent people.

I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist.

You’re safe to use adjectives to describe human beings. But races are a taxonomy. So when we start to classify them as members in this taxonomy, we’ve employed the racialist worldview to aid in our judgement of human beings. Once we drop the racialist worldview from our thinking we should have no problem using better foundations.

Myself being an in-betweener, voting rightish in scandinavian elections aka probably democrat in the US i still com from a working class background. My father made the journey to middle class. Me and my brother are the first ones going to university. Now I have come in contact with people from wealthy academical homes and surprisingly many lean to the left. Same when you read about eg Sartre. Also from a profoundly bourgeoisie home, but becomes a socialist.

In the same family you can see entrepreneurs and activists. What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? Very few people in my humble-house background in a not so good suburb became socialists.

Perhaps they were weened too late. Less responsibility. Less risk. It’s no strange wonder that the coddled grow up to prefer the same treatment when they get older. The “cradle-to-the-grave” concept is no joke.

I know that if rioters burned my business to the ground I would be happy if the leader of our country came in support. I can’t think of any leader having the balls to do so.

From my own vantage point, I have rarely come across people who listen to what the president says and coming to their own conclusions, instead preferring to be informed by certain media outlets, political PACS and even celebrities. This is how mass hysteria begins. So it’s disconcerting when people say the president divides while at the same time relying on yellow journalism to inform them what to think. We know that many journalists have eschewed the ethics of their craft in favor of activism, and I think we are viewing the result.

Trump offered federal support, only to be denied. Days after Wheeler rebuked the president’s offer a protester is killed. Once they asked for federal support in Wisconsin, and received it, the riots subsided. Imagine that.

The kid clearly defended himself when a convicted pedophile rushed him and tried to grab his gun. He disarmed another man, quite literally, who ran at him with a pistol, and then he slayed another who tried to hit him with a skateboard. It turns out if you attack a man with a gun you get shot.

It will get more ugly. But to blame Trump for the division, when most if not all of the rioters inform themselves through a hostile media, seems to me to be short-sighted and to attribute omnipotent power to one man. These are democrat-run cities now burned to the ground and I think the voters are now realizing this.

Blaming others for that which you are guilty. I’m not surprised.

You just cry “fascism” out of one side of the mouth and then pretend you’re not calling anyone a fascist out the other. So fake.

Why the scare quotes? And is Trump stupid for planning to visit Kenosha tomorrow?

It’s like calling the shooter, the rioters, Bernie supporters. It may be true, but it’s malinformation. The groups involved have names.

No, I think it’s wise for the president to show support to the victims of riots, and I think it’s a good move politically.

No, I label rioters as “rioters”. You call Americans “fascists” and, like a ghoul, cry foul when your incitement comes home to roost.

“I am not sad that a f–king fascist died tonight,” a woman shouts into a megaphone at a BLM-Antifa gathering after a man was shot dead nearby.

“He was a f–king Nazi. Our community held its own and took out the trash.”

BLM Activists Celebrated as Trump supporter killed