Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
It didn't exactly blow up in the Democrat's face when they did it...
true. because the democrats had clear crimes Trump committed. The republicans have yet to find a single crime Biden has committed in his entire career. They've got nothing but innuendo. And they are going to impeach him on that innuendo. And it will blow up in their face when everyone sees what ridiculous partisan bullshit their impeachment charges are.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Democrats resign when they get caught doing bad things? Tell that to Senator Bob Menendez (D--NJ).
I'm sure that as the investigation goes on and more details come out, he will eventually do so.
The day VP Harris, who controls the Democrat-majority Senate, holds a binding vote to expel Sen. Menendez, and the day half of Senate Democrats (the rough percentage of GOP reps who voted to oust Santos) vote in favor of said motion is the day that what you're saying now will have some credibility. Until then...
lol the republicans have known that he was a MASSIVE liar and a fraud basically from the moment he was elected. And still they voted against ousting him twice and allowed him to sit in congress for a year before doing something about him. And they only eventually did something about it because he was defrauding big dollar republican donors. And even then, only half of republicans voted to remove him. Half still wanted him to stay. And you think they have credibility?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It is life from conception, and what makes it valuable is that it is human.
So is a cancer cell. It is a living cell and it is human. But it isn't a person. A cluster of human cells isn't a person.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Is it because Biden is close to be impeached? Lol.
republicans never learn. They are going to go through with impeaching him even though they can't find a single law he has broken. And it is going to blow up in their face.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
He pissed off donors, that's the one and only constituency the Republicans give a shit about.
yes. Republicans don't care if you lie to your constituents and illegally spend your campaign funds. they all do that. But if you mess with rich people who donate to republican campaigns, your ass is toast.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
A person who lacked the integrity to avoid committing obvious fraud/embezzlement in the first place would have the integrity to resign out of a troubled conscience? A dubious assumption.
I mean, in almost all cases, yes. Why do you think it is so rare for a congressman to be expelled? It isn't because they don't do bad things. It is because when they are discovered to have done bad things they usually resign.
But in the age of trump, that has changed (for republicans). Trump committed tons of crimes, regularly abused his power, and the republican base loves him for it. So it is to be expected that others would follow in his example. Santos, in many ways, is just like trump. He just doesn't have the experience with rich people grifting that trump does.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i realize many of my ideas he doesn't have the power to do, but he also doesn't talk about these ideas in a competent manner.
I would assume that many of your ideas require congress to pass it. And right now they can't pass a budget for things that were agreed to a year ago. The idea that the republicans would pass any of those things is crazy.
I'm not exactly a huge fan of biden either. I don't think he fights hard enough for the things that matter and he allowed sinema and manchin to sabotage his agenda. But until the next election, there isn't anything too radical he could do. Without control of congress, his hands are kind of tied. And republicans only real job for the last decade or 2 has been running the government into the ground and blocking the democrats from fixing it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
literally, all kinds of ideas.
what ideas are you saying he should support? Since a large chunk of inflation over the last few years is just corporate greed jacking up prices because they can get away with it, ultimately, the only way he could do anything about it is some sort of price fixing law. But that would be been seen as massive overreach, and probably rightly so. So i'm curious what actions you feel he could take.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Still a hundred votes higher than the number of Democrats who would vote to expel a Democratic colleague in the same boat.
the difference is that if it were a democrat, a vote would never have happened. Because they would have resigned. The fact that he has been allowed to remain a congressman this long is a stunning indictment of the republicans. His vote in congress meant more to them than the fact that he is a grifter who lied his way into office. But since most of them are just grifters too, it isn't that surprising.
Created:
the worst one to me is when he told a disabled, homeless, veteran he would raise funds for his sick dog to get him treatment. He raised the money on go fund me, then stole the money. The dog died.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
My point was that the people democratically elected Hamas. Hamas fighters are Palestinian. Palestinians and their supporters think Israel shouldn’t even exist.
ok, but your point is stupid. The people democratically elected the democrats. democrats are american. therefore, by your logic, you are a democrat. see how dumb that is?
also, multiple points about that election.
1) it was like 10 years ago, they never got another election.
2) hamas got 44% of the vote and the next party got 41% of the vote. so even if they elected them yesterday, 56% of the people israel is killing didn't vote for hamas.
The difference here is that the Israeli people can conduct democratic elections. Palestinians cannot. Whose fault is that?
I mean, in large part Israel. They refused, and still refuse, to allow the Palestinian authority to be allowed to have any control over Gaza. Israel wanted gaza and the west bank separate so that the PA can't realistically say they speak for the palestinians, since they don't govern all of them. Even now, Israel has said they wont allow the PA to govern Gaza once hamas is removed. Because Israel doesn't actually want peace.
It’s not Israel’s fault that Hamas hides among civilians and civilians do nothing about it.
there's alot to unpack here. 1) what the hell are they supposed to do about it? The people with guns and explosives say they are going to store them here, are you supposed to fight them off? Expecting civilians to be able to stop hamas is stupid.
2) the people see Israel as the real evil. Hamas doesn't bomb their schools, hospitals, refugee camps etc. Even before the attack by hamas, this year was already a record year in IDF forces killing palestinian civilians. They kill civilians all the time, every year. To expect civilians to side with the people who regularly kill them and constantly imprison them is insane.
If the source of the problem is Hamas, then the people shouldn’t support Hamas.
Hamas isn't the source of the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. As long as Israel continues to treat the palestinians like garbage, a group like Hamas will exist. Even if Israel gets exactly what they say they want, Hamas ceases to exist. A new Hamas would come into existence tomorrow. You can't murder 10's of thousands of civilians and then expect their family members to not want to fight back. The only end to this cycle is to actually negotiate and resolve the underlying issues. As long as Israel continues to treat force as the only solution, they will never be able to end the violence. And they don't even want to. netanyahu is actually a supporter of Hamas. He likes their terrorism justifies Israeli violence and undermines negotiations.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks for that lesson in trickle down economics Mr. Reagan
lol no. that is the opposite of trickle down economics. Trick down economics is when you give money to rich people and corporations with the hope they will spend some of it improving their business or paying their workers. this does not work. it never has. it was made up to help make rich people richer.
Giving money to poor people is the exact opposite of that. And it has been shown over and over again to be highly effective at stimulating economic growth. I think you are stuck on the idea that people with student loans are somehow rich people, when that is REALLY not the case. Rich people don't owe student loans because they had the money to pay for their education out of pocket. It is the poor people trying to get a better life that get buried in student loans.
But I guess if you wanted a way to cut 400 Billion dollars in revenue for the government
umm, it is not cutting revenue for the government. It is a government expenditure. one which will help millions of poor people and stimulate the economy. There might be some better ways to spend money, but it is pretty high on the list of getting return on investment.
you know as well as I do that revenue cut won't last.
This doesn't make sense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's a head scratcher for sure considering it's the poor working stiff paying the bills of the most elite class of people
1) 51% of americans have post secondary education. so no, they are not"the most elite class of people"
2) if they are the "most elite class of people" then they don't have student loans. Because their daddy paid it for them or they made so much money they paid it off.
3) I thoroughly agree that "the poor working stiff" is paying for too much stuff. The taxes on the rich and corporations need to be significantly higher. that way everyone can benefit.
4) alleviating student debt is a huge net positive to the economy. that money that was being tied down paying loans can now be spent on buying a house, a car etc. This is a massive boost to the economy as a whole.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Control is a third ideology. Left and right are barely distinguishable in America in comparison. Your posts suggest that the illusion of choice and the existence of left and right actually exist.
left and right do exist. There are just policy areas where both parties agree. Foreign policy, handing as much money as possible to corporations etc.
But I mean, alleviating student debt, providing health care to the poor, these are left positions. Cutting taxes for the rich, targeting minorities at every opportunity, these are policies of the right. and they are very distinguishable between the 2 parties.
Again, Bezos's far-left WAPO is all about control. It's very effective because people believe the lie that if someone wears the left wing skin, that they cannot exert control over those who have little control.
I really am not sure what you are talking about here. WAPO is more corporatist than left. But I don't read it, so that is just my impression.
If common people believed Republicans actually wanted to dismantle the institutions of power and control, every Billionaire would convert to the Republican skin overnight to perpetuate the scam.
umm what? that would be unpopular. so I doubt billionaires would want to get behind that. What you think of as "control", is what most people would describe as a functioning modern society. obviously this can be taken to far, but most people wouldn't want to "dismantle the institutions of power and control". Because the real world results of that would be poor people getting poorer, losing access to health care, public services collapsing etc.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He owns WAPO, clearly he isn't afraid to wear that skin when it suits him. If his ownership was actually about ideology, WAPO would be promoting someone else to control the people.
That is not an argument for him being left or right wing. You haven't pointed to a single thing he has done or belief he holds that is left wing. Yet you believe he is. this suggests to me that you have believed the narrative coming from right wing billionaires on fox (or one of the other billionaire funded right wing media source)
Bezos is like most billionaires. He wants the things that benefit him. And that is right wing economic ideology. cutting regulations so he is free to make employees pee in bottles and not be able to unionize. Cutting taxes for the rich and corporations so he doesn't have to pay back into the system he profits off of. He has some centrist social positions, but he is right wing in every way that matters.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's just the costume they wear that works. Right now, the left-wing costume is very popular for billionaires.
I mean, maybe a little. But not really. Most people would not say Jeff Bazos is left-wing. I would guess it is just people who consume right wing media that say that. The right labels anyone who isn't really right wing, as left wing. Jeff bazos is kind of center right in the policy he supports. So it's weird that you would use him as an example of a left wing billionaire.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like I said, this isn't about Ideology, it is about control. Democrat and Republican are labels for the same thing. Control.
then why were you talking about leftwing and right wing? if your issue is just control, then both right and leftwing are equally bad to you. They both want control, just for different reasons.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So Bezos is right-wing? Odd take, but ok.
I will break this down, but I think to start you may have a misguided opinion on what left wing is. If a position has like 60% support from the public, that is not a left wing position. that is the centrist position. Also, did you read this source. None of these are leftwing positions. Not one.
He gave big to defend gay marriage last year.
polls say around 70% of americans support gay marriage. So it isn't a left wing position. It is the overwhelming majority opinion.
2. He's been described as a libertarian.
this point just confirms he has right wing policy positions.
3. He's mostly given to Democratic candidates.
this isn't leftwing. All rich people donate money to politicians to get personal gain.
4. His mother and stepfather were big supporters of charter schools.
charter schools are a right wing thing.
5. Amazon's PAC gives to both parties:
this just further confirms he isn't left wing.
It's quite common for billionaires to signal left on social issues while embracing the traditional authoritarian role of the government subsidizing corporations and billionaires. Wolves in sheep's clothing. So much so, they even start to believe it themselves! The propaganda literally writes itself for them. Most Democrats since FDR have enjoyed the cozy relationship between industry giants and political donations.
are you aware that you aren't describing leftwing positions? The government helping corporations is not a leftwing position. The democrats certainly do that. The republicans do it even more. That is a corporatist position, it isn't left or right.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not an equal problem because there are many more leftist billionaires in the game with more money.
you're kidding right? There are very few actually leftist billionaires. I can think of one or 2. You don't become a billionaire if you want to help people. Because if you did, you would have used that money to actually help people. Billionaires are overwhelmingly right wing. Because right ideology is designed to make them richer. There are some billionaires who pretend to be left because it benefits them financially to do so. But when it comes to actual policy they want to push, it is usually pretty right wing stuff.
But now that I write this, you are probably just using "left" to mean social issues. If you only look at social issues and completely ignore all other types of policy, then you could argue there are lots of left wing billionaires. But if you look at the policy they actually push for, most of them definitely do not qualify as "left".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most MSM is run by leftist billionaires, from Gates to Bezos. I see the problem is pretty big there.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen on the left too. It certainly does. But virtually all right wing media is funded by rightwing billionaires. Do you acknowledge that it is equally a problem for the right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe the left will wake up to the fact that media propaganda isn't telling the whole story, be it in Palestine, Iraq, or Ukraine.
i mean, I don't know who you mean by "the left". Lots of people fall for media propaganda. I would say the percentage is MUCH higher on the right than the left.
but as for me personally, I know the media adds their own spin. And most media in the west adds a pro-israel spin. They are actively trying to downplay the atrocities the IDF has carried out.
Elite wealthy people in the media have been masters of the left long enough.
what? The koch brothers and a few other billionaires fund a very large percentage of right wing media. The right is entirely run by elite wealthy people. So complaining about the left doing this just seems weird. They certainly have the same problem, but not nearly to the same extent as the right.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Pro-Palestine = Pro-Hamas.
no, it's not. I assume you hate joe biden and the democrats. So you are not pro-democratic party. does that mean you also hate america and all the american people? You can oppose a government or even hate a government and still support the people of that country.
For example, I support the people of Israel. They have a right to exist and be happy. Their government are genocidal monsters who are murdering 10's of thousands of innocent people. I support the palestinians. Their "government" are genocidal monsters who murdered thousands of people.
But Hamas being monsters does not justify the mass murder of civilians. Some civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but Israel is WAY over the line. They've bombed hospitals, refugee camps etc. They told people move to area X because we are going to bomb area Y. Then proceeded to bomb them as the civilians went to area X. Then bombed area X too for good measure.
Created:
-->
@Athias
For one, I have. You need only look in the first thread I've ever created where I provide video of him pinching the nipple of a then eight year old girl on national television.
I don't know exactly where that is. A link would be helpful. But it REALLY sounds like bullshit. I mean, republicans have been looking for literally any reason to attack biden. Members of congress have openly lied in an impeachment inquiry trying to smear him. (emmer said that text messages showed biden trying get his son help with a business venture, the truth was he was trying to get him help paying his alimony).
So if there was any truth to your accusation, the republicans and fox would have been running it as front page news and definitely brought it up in their stupid little impeachment time waster.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you're going to rail against underage sex and molestation, then be consistent, especially considering this nation's current President.
what? when has anyone ever accuse biden of underage sex or molestation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
But then I thought Israel pulled out of Palestine?
this is taken from that wikipedia page. They still controlled the borders, airspace and waters around gaza, ie keeping anyone from entering or leaving.
"After Israel's withdrawal, the Palestinians were given control over the Gaza Strip, except for the borders, the airspace and the territorial waters."
Yeah, I heard about the airport and seaport getting knocked out,But again, the 'wars,At least 'some of that was due to war collateral damage/targeting, contradictory terms I know.
I mean, yes they bomb them too. But that wasn't really my point. My primary point is that even if the airport and seaport are fully operational, Israel doesn't let the Palestinians use them because Israel controls their airspace and territorial waters.
I have 'heard some members of Israel played both sides of Palestine political parties, and supported Hamas at times, Though I've not looked into it in depth.
It's interesting. The current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has served for a total of 16 years (there are some gaps in the middle where he was out of power), is one of the people who pushed to make sure Hamas could exist. But he also publicly rails against them. He keeps them there because they are useful to him, while publicly saying they are terrorists and criminals etc.
I admit Palestinians have a harder time being 'able to travel, but I don't think they are 'prohibited quite?
I believe this only describes Palestinians who live under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians in the west bank are, palestinians in the Gaza strip are not. In order to leave the gaza strip it is much more onerous. My understanding is that Hamas has to approve it, then the Palestinian Authority has to approve it, then the Israeli government has to approve it. It is very difficult for people to pull this off. So they are effectively trapped in the gaza strip.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Well, Gaza 'is part of Palestine, I 'think.
yes. palestine describes both the west bank and gaza.
Seeing on how Gaza has 'kept up terrorist attacks, rocket attacks,I don't see why Israel would just let them just enter without checking who they are.
we aren't talking about "checking who they are". we are talking about being banned from leaving in almost all cases.
Sounds a prison made by Hamas, a fair bit, to me.
i do not dispute that Hamas certainly played a large role in the situation being what it is. That doesn't justify Israel's actions. If your neighbor is doing things to threaten you, that doesn't justify you in attacking his wife and children.
It also doesn't really take into account that Hamas is, in many ways, a creation of Israel. When you treat people badly enough, people will turn to an extreme solution. Also, Benjamin Netanyahu has actually been sort of supporting hamas for years. Hamas has been very useful for him. It keeps the Palestinian people divided (between the west bank and Gaza) so that there isn't a single Palestinian state, making sure no one can claim to speak for all Palestinians and preventing any unified Palestinian state from existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a contradiction because you cannot prefer something if there is no alternative. It's like you saying you prefer to live on Earth instead of some unreachable planet. What the people want is either irrelevant because no choice exists. Or it is relevant and they do have a choice. You can't have both.
lol so we're splitting hairs now are we? Fair enough. They could leave their homes and be bombed while on the road or maybe reach a place with no shelter or food available for them anyway. Starvation and death are technically a place to go, but not one a person should ever suggest as a viable option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
the short version is:
1)Palestinians in Gaza are not permitted to leave without Israel's permission, and it is very difficult to get permission.
2) Israel has Gaza under a blockade (for like 16 years) restricting access to all sorts of goods from entering Gaza, but particularly damaging are restrictions on water on fuel. Before the latest round of fighting started, 95% of Palestinians in Gaza did not have access to clean drinking water.
Basically, Israel prevents goods or people from entering or leaving gaza resulting in massive suffering and countless deaths, not even counting the ones they bomb or shoot (which is also hundreds per year). So, honestly, a prison probably has better conditions. At least in prison you get shelter, food and water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
want to stay in their home when there is literally nowhere for them to goThat's a contradiction. You cannot have both these things.
no.... it isn't. there is nowhere for them to go. They are already in an open air prison and Israel has been striking convoys of people fleeing their airstrikes.
They want to stay in their homes. They also have nowhere to go because a) israel is imprisoning them and B) Israel is killing them when they try to run away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hamas pushed their own people to the brink.
hamas didn't build fences and put up machine guns to keep them imprisoned. Israel did that. Hamas didn't blockade them, Israel did that. Hamas isn't building illegal settlements on their land and steal their homes. Israeli is doing that.
it's up to responsible nations to protect the Palestinians from Hamas
I would agree. But 1st we have to protect them from Israel. You know, the one mass murdering them right this minute.
even if it means killing the civilian supporters of Hamas who refuse to leave a war zone.
hmm, so people who want to stay in their home when there is literally nowhere for them to go means you can kill them? That is seriously fucked up.
I nominate America, as it has the most experience in "liberations"
I don't think america is ok with using force on Israel to make them stop killing children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So… taking you at your earlier and unrecanted word in the same convo is now somehow out of bounds or unfair? Seriously?
I never said it was out of bounds. But if you are responding to something said 40 comments ago instead of what I said recently, you should be much more clear what you are talking about. We've talked about lots of stuff, randomly going back to something from awhile ago without telling me which comment you are replying to makes it difficult to understand your comments.
the Viet Cong did not openly state or demonstrate pure hatred and destruction of the South Vietnamese people other than as being party to a puppet government.
In this context, america would be the Israelis, not the south vietnamese. And they definitively did state hatred for america.
If South Vietnamese people wanted to join their cause, they were welcome to it
and hamas would readily welcome palestinians living in Israel. It is no different.
The Viet Cong did not intentionally sacrifice their own innocents to the same extent and same eagerness as Hamas.
what are you talking about? They constantly hid weapons cache's in villages forcing the americans to attack them, bomb them, burn them etc. they regularly terrorized civilians in areas that were sympathetic to the south's government forcing them to hide weapons for them, forcing them to fight for the viet kong. They did almost exactly the same things as hamas.
You want to believe that hamas is evil because of their culture/religion. Because if that is the reason, then they can be condemned without having to look at Israel's actions. But if you look at their actions in the same lens as other conflicts, you very quickly see that most people put into a situation like the Palestinians have been put in will start using tactics similar to Hamas. They are not unique. It has happened before all over the world, and it will happen again. You push people to the brink and make them desperate enough, they will lash out with anything and everything they've got.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
This is it just you focusing on an individuals vote. Rural Americans would have their needs completely ignored in your system. A politician could just let the 10 biggest cities completely decide an election and literally ignore the people who are not in those specific 10 cities.
ok, if those 10 cities made up the majority of the population of the country, why is that a problem? Why should 10% of the country get to dictate policy to the other 90%?
It's not about an individuals voting power. You already know this if you read my argument.
I did read your argument, it was dumb. Basically, you want voters is rural areas to have significant political power even though they are a tiny percent of the population. thus allowing minorities to dictate policy to the majority. That is a bad system.
If we have a nationwide recount, you have to hand count 150 million votes.
I don't see how this is any different than the current system. If there are electoral irregularities you have to recount the votes. Why would eliminating the electoral collage somehow mean you have to recount all of them instead of just in the area where there was an irregularity?
1. Electoral college bad
yes, yes it is. unless you are part of the minority and you want to enforce your views on the majority. Then it's great because your vote counts for like 6 times what other people's votes count for.
2. Term limit good
I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, you have people like mitch McConnel or Nancy Pelosi who have been in their positions so long that even if they once wanted what was best for people, they have long since forgotten that. They are only looking out for what is best for them and/or their party, the rest of the country be damned.
On the other hand, you have examples of people who have been there much shorter amounts of time who are even worse, like Mat Gaetz. You would also force out experienced people who actually do want what's best for people, like Bernie Sanders. So there are serious downsides to term limits.
Powerful military bad
there is nothing wrong with a powerful military. there is something wrong with spending more on the military than the next 9 top spenders in the world combined (several of which are US allies).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Not at all. Here is a direct quote from your post 133:
oh, i see. You are replying to something I said 40 comments ago and not what I said in the comment you are replying to.
I don’t recall you illustrating the exact same dynamics elsewhere, but please point to your post where such an example is provided.
I offered the example of the vietnam war. The viet kong engaged in lots of activity that could be described as terrorism. They regularly murdered people for co-operating with the americans. They hid bombs, they killed civilians, they used terror as a weapon. they didn't do any of this for cultural or religious reasons, it was simply the best tactic available to them in their situation. If they had lost the war, the west would have painted them as terrorists and murders. But they won. So they are remembered as freedom fighters and patriots.
But when Hamas uses similar tactics, you ascribe it to their religion or culture. That is bigotry. You want it to be the cause of their actions because it is the simplest way to put all the blame on them. If hamas somehow won the war, forced all the jews to flee Israel, they would be lauded as heroes and patriots by significant portions of the world.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Nobody serious would advocate for abolishing the electoral college. The United States created a system meant to get equal representation and making the voted of rural America not count wouldn't accomplish that.
you seem to misunderstand. The current system does not give equal representation. It gives people in rural areas like 4x-6x more representation than people in cities. A vote in kansas is worth many times more than a vote in california or texas. This skews the government into not actually trying to represent the majority of their people because they know they can win by only trying to appeal to certain minority sections of it.
electing a presidential candidate that can literally only tour big cities and ignore the needs of rural areas isn't going to be fair
why? A candidate shouldn't be able to win by appealing to the large majority of americans? You don't seem to be describing "fair". you are describing giving certain people much more power at the expense of others.
If republicans ever support a popular vote than they are either evil or stupid, because it just isn't practical.
lots of countries use that sort of system. It is much more simple and practical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not of top level CEO's.
and? a member of congress makes more than like 90% of the population. That means that the salary is already attractive to the overwhelming majority of the population. So money is not really a factor in attracting candidates.
and why would you want to attract CEO's? Their experience is dedicated toward extracting the maximum amount of money out of people as possible. That isn't really the kind of skills you want/need in someone whose primary job is helping people.
But this is already happening. The vast majority of people in Congress are subsidized by lobbyists, and they are solely interested in their money
I don't see how your plan addresses that. They would make lots of money from their job directly, they could make lots more by selling out. You just also have the added bonus of almost exclusively attracting candidates whose primary, or potentially only, motive is personal profit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
There is also an explanation that Netanyahu has been so concerned with internal politics that he was distracted from external threats.
yes, that would be the massive negligence part. If you are allowing your internal politics distract you from doing your job, you are negligent. So the best read possible is that he failed at his job and allowed alot of people to be killed. At least 2 countries have said they knew an attack was coming and warned Israel. Yet they still got caught with their pants down.
Your other points about power roles seem to assume that things would be much the same if the power roles were reversed. Power paradigm arguments strike me as simplistic, so we will have to agree to disagree…
You are kind of twisting my argument. I said that you can see the exact same dynamics play out in other conflicts. You choose to make a religious/ethnic argument about Hamas and try to paint them as somehow unique. But when their actions can easily be explained by comparing them to other conflicts, this seems like a very weak argument. Their tactics are not all that different from other groups that have been in similar situations, so saying that their actions are because of their religion just seems kind of bigoted. you want to make it about them/their religion, and not about the situation Israel has put them in. Because if it is all about their religion, then just blaming them is easy. If their actions are as a result of the situation Israel largely created, then you would have to acknowledge that Israel bares some responsibility for their actions.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
it is interesting to be sure. Cooperation agreements usually require someone to not only testify in the specific trial they are in, but in all other investigations too. so it may require her to testify in all the other investigations into trump as well, including Jack Smith's federal prosecution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean, I doubt it would help and might make it worse. I understand that you need to pay leaders well because if you don't, they will find other ways to earn a living. But there is a limit. 175,000 is already among the top few percent of earnings. Changing it from having them at (i'm making this part up since I don't know) in the top 10% of earners to the top 2% of earners doesn't really change much. They are already well paid.
Additionally, it would make the job even more valuable to people who don't have their constituents best interests at heart. Getting elected is an instant payday. What wouldn't you say or do to get that kind of money? It would attract candidates that are solely interested in the money. That isn't supposed to the be the point. And I would argue if you start attracting candidates that are solely interested in money, that might make them even more likely to sell out to corporations, because money is the only reason they are there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Believing as they do in a paradise afterlife, Hamas value death more than this life. That belief is how they can sacrifice themselves and so many of their own innocents for their goal. In contrast, Jews value life over death. Their motive is the preservation of the Jewish state and the safety of its citizens.
that is a super simplistic take on it. There is a better one. The Israeli's are rich and powerful and control the thing they want to control. so their goal is preservation of the wealth and power they already possess. They aren't looking to sacrifice themselves because they don't need to, they already have pretty much won. Hamas is poor and largely powerless. Their country has been taken from them. Their people are poor, starving, and imprisoned. They are willing to risk much more because they have much less to lose.
You can see this same dynamic in lots of other conflicts. The vietnam war for example. The US wanted to minimize casualties and just reign destruction on their enemies from afar and to not risk themselves. The Vietnamese were willing to take horrific causalities because they had to win or die.
The side that is weaker in a conflict always has to be willing to take more risks and higher losses. If they aren't, then they are doomed.
One can fashion a compromise consistent with the Israeli government’s goals of self preservation, but how does one compromise with wishes of total destruction?
I mean, obviously the 2 goals cannot both be accomplished. But, to me, it's a bit like Taiwan still claiming to be the rightful government of all of china. they know they aren't. The rest of the world knows they aren't. but they still have to say it. I'd say there is a good chance that some, if not most of the leadership of Hamas would like to destroy Israel. But I think, much like Taiwan, most can see the writing is on the wall and that isn't going to happen. But maintaining the claim is still part of their political platform.
But I would argue that Israel's goal is not "self preservation". It is maintaining as much of the land they have taken as possible. The settlements are proof of this. Those settlements are illegal. They make peace more difficult, if not impossible, and almost guarantee more attacks. If they really were looking for self preservation, those settlements are counter productive. But they build more of them year after year. It's because it's not about survival. It's about making sure they keep all that land in any future resolution.
It might even be about trying to trigger Hamas into doing something terrible so that Israel could have a pretext to something terrible themselves, like expel millions of palestinians. Bibi's popularity is not doing well in Israel. At best his government was massively negligent. At worst they allowed this attack to happen even though they knew it was coming because they wanted an excuse to attack Hamas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
You just take whatever Aljazeera feeds you without critical thought.
I have literally never watched or read Aljazeera.
They are actually more successful in Israel than non palestinians and over represented in medicine, and law among other professions. They have equal voting rights and there are elected politicians who are palestinian.
this would only be a valid point if the Israeli's were willing to give citizenship to all palestinians. But they aren't. They would rather die than let that happen.
In the Gaza region billions have been spent on aid only for Hamas to steal it. If they are being treated like animals it is by the terrorist organization using them as human shields.
From Hamas' perspective, which I am not saying is the correct one, they are using the only resources available to them to try to get their people freedom from Israeli slavery. From that perspective, using the aid this way is the best choice for their people. You can't understand people or try to resolve conflict if you aren't willing to look at the situation from their point of view. Something you seem to always refuse to do.
Let's imagine your scenario is correct and the Israeli government did treat them like animals. What then would excuse Hamas targeting the very civilians most likely to fight against that injustice, meaning liberals and leftists at a music festival? 80% of the dead israeli bodies even children have been found to have been tortured prior to death?
I would imagine the point is to tank israeli attempts to normalize relations with the saudis. By committing atrocities, it triggers the Israeli government to commit atrocities right back. And then that angers other arab and/or muslim countries. It would seem the goal was to remind the world how brutal Israel is since most countries have become numb to Israel's brutality.
Yeah I guess Israel is supposed to take no action against a military who will target them and kill their civilians over and over.
if they were trying to take steps to resolve the issue and still being attacked, you would have a point. They are not. They are actively trying to antagonize the situation and make it worse(intensifying support for illegal settlements, going to the al aqsa mosque etc). The Israeli government made an attack from Hamas inevitable.
peace deal after peacedeal has been proposed. Once there was even a peace deal offering palestinians most of Israel, but it was rejected by the extremists that run their area because they want an extermination of Jews. This is their own words.
is any of this recent? I'm not aware of any serious attempts from Israel in the last decade or 2 to resolve the situation. But they have, year after year, made peace less likely by expanding their illegal settlements.
"supporting terrorists by pointing out the civilians they targeted live in a country that sometimes created bad policies isn't whataboutism, I am just saying whatabout what Israel did that is a type of terrorism also?"
my argument is that A causes B. You are saying that by talking about A, I am engaging in whataboutism. That is not true. That is basic causality. Now obvious the situation is much more complex than that, but Israel's crimes are helping to cause Hamas' crimes. So talking about Israel's shitty behavior is not whataboutism.
SO what? It's a bit of hyperbole. No matter what you do, it will be an imperfect solution? If a country has the military might to impose a solution that is the least bad solution on another country, so what. it's not a big deal, and we were discussing how we could get a more safer world with the threat of your nuclear capabilities, by putting palestinians and Israeli's in a better position, and this was only talked about in the context of one of a million solutions and of course many of the solutions can be partial and mixed.
your "solution" was to mass expel millions of people from their country. On it's own, that is a horrendous crime. You then went further to say that when people object (which everyone obviously will since the plan is pretty evil) that you should murder millions of people to force your evil plan on them and that you have the right to inflict that evil on them because you are stronger than them. That is horrifyingly evil. Worse than the NAZIs kind of evil. How do you not see that?
Created:
Posted in:
I don’t see the two as equivalent at all because I believe that intent matters. If you shoot an attacker, and the bullet goes through him and ricochets and also hits a child, that is quite different from finding a child and shooting him.
that's true. Intent absolutely matters. Let's say I locked a family in my basement. I starve them, I beat them, I never let them leave. Then one day they break out and try to kill me so I kill them all, men women and children. Is that self defense? They were certainly trying to kill me. But you could just as easily say that they were defending themselves from me by trying to kill me.
Israel has treated the palestinians like dogs for decades. They regularly kill hundreds of them. They keep them imprisoned. They blockade them from receiving basic supplies. Then they, very predictably, lash out at their jailors. The jailors now say they are defending themselves. The prisoners say they are defending themselves. They are both kind of right. they are both kind of wrong.
-Hamas knew exactly what Israel would do after their massacre, so Hamas basically caused the response intentionally.
probably. And ben-gvir knew what he was doing would trigger a response from Hamas. (visiting al aqsa mosque among many other things). The Israeli government knew the things they were doing would trigger a violent backlash, they did them anyway for political reasons. Hamas knew what they were doing would cause a violent backlash, they did it anyway for political reasons.
-There are Israeli hostages also being “tortured” by Israel shutting off power. I’m sure you even agree that isn’t by intent.
by torture, I don't just mean the power being turned off. Although that certainly is included. But keeping them imprisoned and blockaded, shooting them if they do things the Israeli military doesn't like, etc. They have been systemically targeting the palestinians for decades.
-The intent of shutting off power is to flush out Hamas and the hostages, not to torture children.
that is only the latest in a very long line of very shitty things Israel has done to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
if Hamas uses the Palestine peoples money to build bunkers and rockets instead of desalination plants, wouldn't you want to eradicate Hamas so that the children could have water?
what a weird question. they are being trapped in an open air prison while Israel cuts them off from food, medicine etc. Is a desalination plant going to help them escape from their eternal prison? I'm not saying that Hamas' plan is a good one. I'm not saying that they aren't evil, they do evil things. But it's been decades and Israel is as far away as they have ever been from freeing the Palestinians. Being nice to Israel isn't going to help them, it might make their imprisonment a little less shitty, but they would stay prisoners forever.
What about the parents of those children that support Hamas...eradicate them too to save the Palestine children from an open air prison of their own making?
they certainly had a hand in the events that created it. But it is Israeli fences closing them in. It is Israeli machine guns and snipers that kill hundreds of Palestinians every year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Do you believe the Israeli government has committed the moral equivalent of intentionally targeting infants for beheading and posting proof of execution/kidnapping to people’s Facebook pages?
they keep millions of people in an open air prison while cutting off their access to food, medicine etc. Is torturing children better than beheading them? I honesty don't know the answer to that question. I just know both are evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
We have all done horrible things, stop making excuses for terrorism.
If you treat people like animals for long enough, they are going to fight back. Some of them are going to use horrible, inhuman tactics. I'm not excusing terrorism. I'm explaining how Israel helps cause it.
I support those people as well, which is why I place the blame for that on Hamas, where it belongs.
lol, hamas isn't bombing them. Israel is. You can't say I support those people by supporting their murder.
I guess the expectation is for israelr to surrender and be genocide rather than do the ugly things need to make them and the people of Gaza safe from terrorists.
no, the expectation is to actually negotiate and resolve the conflict. Instead they make it worse year after year.
Sorry that nations that supported genocide of Jews will need to face some harsh circumstances in th name of justice if they aren't willing to make amends.
You said you wanted to use nuclear weapons on any country who tried to stop Israel from mass deporting all the palestinians. That has nothing to do with "genocide of jews". That has to do with you wanting Israel to commit an extremely evil crime, then commit an even greater one if anyone dares try to stop them.
All of your whataboutism aside, it is evil to support this shit.
whataboutism is when someone distracts with something unrelated or tangentially related. Like when a republican does something corrupt and you point to a democrat doing something corrupt to change the subject. Explaining that Israel's long history of mistreating the palestinians has been a main cause of the current conflict isn't whataboutism. It is very much on topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
I never thought that the sort of anti semitism I am seeing,
I might have more sympathy toward that statement if you hadn't also accused me of anti-semitism for pointing out that Israel has also done horrible, horrible things. They are currently killing hundreds and hundreds of children. It seems like you think criticism of Israel is the same thing as anti-semitism. And any support for innocent people being bombed by Israel is anti-semitism.
It might also be more convincing if you hadn't said this.
Then they can take a nuke to the face TBH. The world can become civilized and peaceful voluntarily or by the people who stand in the way getting nuked in the face.I dont k ow that expulsion is needed, but if it is, it's none of the business of the country the get expelled to, if they dont like it, they can get a nuke to the face, fuckem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
This is from a wiki article about international views on Palestinian statehood:
ok, it's a slightly more diplomatic message than hamas for sure. they have, at certain points, made vague statements saying that a Palestinian state could exist because the US forced them to without ever confirming what such a state might look like. But then immediately make sure that such a state is impossible. Building settlements on stolen land while at the same time saying that maybe the Palestinians could have a state are opposite positions. Saying they could have their land back (because the US is making you) while also making sure you can't/wont ever give it back shows the 1st statement was a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
is the hearsay strong enough for an impeachment iquirery or investigation?
An "investigation"? I mean, I guess. It's a bit of a waste of time and government resources, but it doesn't hurt to double check.
An actual Impeachment Inquiry? No, of course not. There is absolutely no evidence of any crimes. Official impeachment inquiries are to examine the evidence of wrongdoing. you aren't supposed to start an inquiry without evidence. And so far, they have not shown a single shred of evidence despite looking for it for a year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The fact of the matter is we have multiple witnesses,
no. there isn't. No one has been able to point to a specific crime biden has committed. We have gotten vague statements from shady people implying he committed crimes. But nothing specific or that can be corroborated. basically, just hearsay from criminals.
and financial statements proving Biden took bribes.
where are these financial statements? That would actually be evidence. I have never heard anyone allege there are bank statements that tie to joe.
And the fact that you can't say it better than someone who said basically nothing at all, does not speak highly of your ability to get your thoughts across.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The email claimed his Dad took half of his earnings.
I've already replied to this exact message. my answer is: So? He wrote an email saying a thing that he has a very good reason to lie about. There is nothing to suggest what he said in the email is true. That email isn't evidence of anything on it's own. If you could also show millions of dollars showing up in Joe biden's bank account around the same time as hunter got paid, then sure that email might help point to who sent that money. But on it's own, that email tells us nothing other than what Hunter wanted people to believe.
So I reiterate. There isn't a single shred of actual evidence that ties Joe to any corruption, bribery or wrong doing of any kind. There is only inuendo and hearsay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I, too, question the wisdom of giving Jews a homeland right next to a people who wish them dead. It hasn’t worked out well. As I said earlier, the Arab League was given a seat at the table at the time of Israel’s creation and partitioning, but they boycotted it. Such unwillingness to compromise hasn’t worked out well, either.
that's fair. The palestinians and arab's in general have not exactly been welcoming and peaceful. They definitely have a role in the current quagmire.
And now, you seem to believe that people can support Hamas without being antisemitic themselves? This keeps getting better and better… or worse and worse.
perhaps I misread. but it is utterly beside the point. I agree Hamas is evil. So the exact degree to which they are evil is kind of splitting hairs. My point was that alot of palestinians want Israel destroyed. That opinion, in and of itself, is not antisemitic. We can, and should, point out the horrible things Israel does. And pretending like that commentary is antisemitic is counter productive.
I didn’t bring it up. To remind you, YOU tried to establish a moral equivalence by speculating that the Israelis are just as against a Palestinian state as vice versa. I have said that rather than speculate on it, look it up… “Israel’s views on a Palestinian state.” But I also said that you are very dug in on the issue, meaning that such a search might not sway you at all.
I have no idea what you are trying to do here. If you have a point to make, make it. I don't know why you are pussy footing around refusing to tell me what you are talking about.
Created: