All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[hyped78]

On the borders and land theft, they're one and the same. When you take land your borders expand. This isn't complicated. Are you still denying the land theft?

On Palestinian criticism vs criticism of Israel, a few things. First, when they join groups or commit terrorist acts on their own it's universally condemned in the West. It's when Israel does the equivalent that the conversation becomes less one-sided. And as I mentioned in a previous post most of the civilized world (including Europe) has strong and deserved condemnation of Israel's actions. It's my own country that blocks consequences for them and silences debate.

If it needs to be said to avoid pedantic "well, ackchyually" posts I'm speaking on an American based board in a political discussion board that's largely dominated by American politics (though we always welcome non-Americans and enjoy getting outside perspectives and stories we might miss in mainstream US media).

On their status as a democracy and not the Jewish homeland you said it was (or ethno-theocracy, as I labeled it) pointing out that they're doing better than Saudi Arabia or have more resources and thus a higher standard of living in general doesn't make them a democracy. And continued denial of the second-class status of non-Jewish/Hebrew citizens is akin to doing the same for black Americans or the Native population here. It serves a political purpose, but as you said "doesn't align with reality".

On being naive or uninformed, I'm not surprised that you're resorting to insults to dismiss. It's sad but not surprising to see someone who complains about being subject to this tactic on the board do the same. You've continually misrepresented or ignored my arguments, denied basic realities, and continued to link any disagreement with at best ignorance of the topic and at worst a clear example of antisemitism. Again, not my first rodeo on this discussion. Arguing in good faith and without bias on this topic is as rare a thing as you'll find in any discussion on this board (or elsewhere).

Had I criticized Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or even France or the US I would not get reflexive pushback (at least on this board) for the simple audacity of doing so. I'd get arguments where others disagreed on specifics, but I wouldn't be reflexively attacked just for the act of doing it. That's the double standard, that's what enables them to do what they do (and ultimately is as bad for them as it is for everyone else involved), that's why so many of their own citizens protest their government and military's actions, and that's why it's not a "far left" thing to do it (even in this country) and why it needs to be a conversation we have instead of a topic we won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

"On the borders and land theft... When you take land your borders expand" - and, again, for the third time, I am asking you to clearly and specifically please explain what borders were expanded? If you don't know, you can just say "I don't know but land was stolen". I am specifically asking what you mean about borders being expanded, specifically, so we can discuss that point.

"Are you still denying the land theft?" - how can I even agree/ disagree with something you haven't defined/ explained at all?

"pointing out that they're doing better than Saudi Arabia or have more resources and thus a higher standard of living in general doesn't make them a democracy" - I didn't only say that (and I would never say that Israel has more resources than Saudi Arabia... huh? where does that come from?). I sent you WW Democracy Index that ranks Israel as a better democracy than any Arab country (and there are many others like this, all pointing to the same; I can provide more if you want) - https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
I've also provided HDI data that shows the same. You've provided zero in your criticism of Israel as a democracy. Zero.
So universities and organizations consider Israel a democracy, and a 'better' one vs. many western countries, a 'better' one vs. all arab nations and you don't? That's fine, that's your opinion - but you need to create some substance and facts as to why you have that opinion.

"second-class status of non-Jewish/Hebrew citizens" - again, you'll need to prove that, beyond e.g. what happens in the US with black people. I've already explained that by law they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis, and at least I don't see you disputing that point? Do you consider the US an ethno-technocracy? If you do, then I understand your point, but then there are no "democracies" if you go to that extreme.

"On being naive or uninformed, I'm not surprised that you're resorting to insults to dismiss" - no, because see, on your first post you said that all I was doing was "whataboutism" (you can go back and read), on your second post you said all I'm doing is a "strawman" (you can go back and read). So yes, I am calling you out on apparently knowing zero, or close to zero on this topic when you've provided zero facts, zero data, zero arguments. You have a very strong opinion that you seem completely unable to back up or even articulate, so what am I supposed to conclude?
I'm not calling you an anti-semite, where have I done that, can you show me that quote?

"Again, not my first rodeo on this discussion" - but yet you seem that have zero knowledge on it. Want to discuss the "expansion of borders", then be specific and say "I am referring to borders X and Y, which were expanded etc. etc.". But you're essentially saying zero. I've given you a mix of facts, data and arguments/ opinion (and the latter is obviously subjective, everyone can disagree with it), you haven't done the same. It's like saying "I am anti abortion" and not knowing about abortion laws and not explaining why.

"Had I criticized Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or even France or the US" - what does that matter for the discussion about Israel? I don't care about that, who's on the whataboutism train now?

If you will continue to not present any facts or arguments on this topic, instead of just saying some hollow soundbytes, we can end the discussion here, that's fine no worries.

[hyped78]

I think Greene falls into the Cruz and Pence frame of mind. The only person that thinks they should and have a chance at any kind of higher office like The White house are in the minds of those 3.

A Trump + Greene ticket has zero change of winning the WH. Zero..... (huh, I hope)

There are issues like gay marriage or gay adoption or the ongoing discussion of trans rights that, while you and I may think should be left to the individual, nonetheless are voted on by representatives who are voted on by all of us collectively.

I'm not saying it's ideal, just that it is. I often hear (from both sides of the aisle) that rights are universal, inherent, etc. but the truth is they're not. We have to decide on them as a society (usually by voting for representatives, who then vote and vote on those who will decide their fitness in the courts), and while luckily we live in a country that in the grand scheme of things values individual and human rights more than the average we're not perfect for many (either not as tolerant or too permissive, depending on your perspective) and has been shown just this year rights can be stripped away.

There's no guarantee we're going to go in the direction in the future that you or I may want either. Unless you're a religious person there's no indisputable set of rules or laws or rights that we're entitled to. If we want them we have to work towards them by doing things like voting, and convincing others that either don't care or don't agree that we're better off as a society if we have those things.

A large portion of the population just wants to be left alone and not told what to do (whether it's the right thing to do or not), and another portion has an idea that the moral teachings of a desert tribe written thousands of years ago when far less was known about the universe and keeping the tribe in line and pumping out young farmers and soldiers was top priority was the pinnacle of morality (except where it's inconvenient, then probably ignored). We're going to have to work around both things if we want to have a society with more rights. They are certainly not guaranteed, and won't be left to the individual to decide (whatever we might wish).

Now this I 100% agree with, great post CSTowle

[CaptainEurope]

Put simply...

- First - Go back in time to when the ACA passed.
- Second - Think about if Republicans were fine with the ACA passing or not.
- Third - Seriously ask yourself if Republicans needed the media to explain why the ACA was bad for Americans(whether it actually was or not...), or if they handled doing that on their own.

Did some of the media play into how they handled doing that on their own? Sure.

Did they wait around for the media to do it themselves before they jumped on it?

Come on...

Do you feel that answered my question? Maybe I am just not following you because English is not my first language.

[numberthirty]

Do you feel that answered my question? Maybe I am just not following you because English is not my first language.

Honestly cannot see how it would not have...

To put it about as simply as I can think to, the example in question is an instance where Republicans essentially did what you laid out.

Considering Trump is wrong around 99.9% of the time?

The one thing he got right is treating the media like it is it's own side and that said side acts accordingly.

Does that mean it rises to "Enemy Of The State..." or whatever he was on about?

Well, no. Does not, and probably never will.

All that said?

They are absolutely their own side, and Dems should absolutely be acting accordingly.

[hyped78]

Regarding potential civil war and division, an interesting article on The Hill:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...rm-in-america/

I especially like this sentence: "Differences based on religion, race and education are not simply differences of interest, like business versus labor. They are differences of values and identity. Differences of interest can be negotiated and compromised. Differences of values and identity cannot."

[hyped78]

Democrats helping/ funding GOP MAGA candidates in the primaries - smart or risky?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzg6PcBlR3U

[worstblogever]

I have a question for WBE.

Now that Louis Gohmert is leaving congress, how are you intyending to celebrate the eventual retirement of *the* profile?

I drink too much already because of the worst of these idiots keep getting elected to make me take a belt, having celebratory drinks... it would seem to run counter. Maybe a nice slice of pie is in order.

I'll definitely be cackling like a madman about it, while further fantasizing that there is also a less than zero possibility he won't get to spend his days as a political pundit as a private citizen because he could go up on seditious conspiracy charges.

[hyped78]

I don't want to focus on presidential approval ratings, I'm looking at "Generic Congressional Ballot" at the moment. Individual House & Senate races have polls starting to trickle in, and those all look pretty rosy for Democrats.

Trump has the cultists so focused on "Let's Go Brandon" that they have no idea who they're supposed to vote for or why. And some of 'em won't know it's supposed to be the "R" in Front of their name peopl.

On the "Generic Congressional Vote" polls, is there a +% or range of +%s you consider to be good/ bad for both sides, to control the Senate? E.g. "If Dems are up +2.0% on Generic Congressional Voting I think that means they will take the Senate".

I know this isn't that easy because obviously it will come down to a few swing states, but curious to see if there are %s/ range of %s where you feel happy/ confident for the Dems vs. not?

[hyped78]

The entire subject is not as black and white as it's often portrayed and it doesn't split party lines. AOC thinks pro-life Dems shouldn't be in office.

AOC questions if Dems who oppose abortion rights should still serve
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/26/aoc...life-democrats

"Because the thing that a lot of people don't like to talk about is the fact that not every Democrat is pro-choice," she added.
"So, the ones that aren't, we really need to reassess if it's appropriate for them to continue to serve in 2022, because people should have the right to control their own body. This is pretty basic."
"That goes for the municipal level, it goes for the state level, it goes for the federal level."

I am generally Pro Choice. Having said that, what you posted shows how radical AOC is, in her inability to live with different opinions within her own party. That's not democratic. It's a good thing she doesn't decide who gets to serve and who doesn't.

It's true that polls said Hillary had it in the bag. I vividly remember a Vox headline of, "The polls are split between Hillary Clinton winning and Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide."

I think that in 2016 and 2020 what we see is that some polling companies have a much better consistent track record of polling than others.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html

[worstblogever]

On the "Generic Congressional Vote" polls, is there a +% or range of +%s you consider to be good/ bad for both sides, to control the Senate? E.g. "If Dems are up +2.0% on Generic Congressional Voting I think that means they will take the Senate".

I know this isn't that easy because obviously it will come down to a few swing states, but curious to see if there are %s/ range of %s where you feel happy/ confident for the Dems vs. not?

I will have a bottle of mead ready, just in case the horror that a restored House GOP to power with MTG & Gaetz in it comes to pass.

[worstblogever]

Well, this is a solid first excerpt...

There's a forthcoming book called "The Divider", about Trump's time in the White House with a never-before heard anecdote...

Trump whined to his former Chief of Staff John Kelly, a former general, about Gen. Mark Milley that "the generals aren't loyal enough to me", and Trump's example for how the Pentagon's top brass should act?

LIKE THE GERMAN GENERALS TREATED HITLER!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/u...officials.html
Kelly then reminded him there were a bunch of German generals who tried to assassinate Hitler on three different occasions, but Trump still insisted that they loved the head of the Third Reich.



Like... this is still Republicans' guy.

[hyped78]

I will have a bottle of mead ready, just in case the horror that a restored House GOP to power with MTG & Gaetz in it comes to pass.

Well, I asked about the Senate because the House is 'theoretically lost'? Or do you think there's a strong chance it's still in play?

Five Thirty Eight has the House 80-20 for the GOP:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...e/?cid=rrpromo

I don't know, there's still a long way to go but if I had to bet money I would bet on Dems keeping control of the Senate and the GOP flipping the House.

[kidfresh512]

I will have a bottle of mead ready, just in case the horror that a restored House GOP to power with MTG & Gaetz in it comes to pass.

Ugh. Did not need to start the day off at the office reading that line. Can you imagine those tools pontificating on committees. Especially MTG, she's bad enough when she's completely irrelevant now , but when they get her back on committees...

[worstblogever]

Ugh. Did not need to start the day off at the office reading that line. Can you imagine those tools pontificating on committees. Especially MTG, she's bad enough when she's completely irrelevant now , but when they get her back on committees...

They already have their agenda. REVENGE. They're just going to waste the people's time by subpoenaing "the other side" for whatever imagined crimes they can.

That's it. That's our taxpayer dollars' at work under GOP rule. A non-stop partisan revenge game that will go nowhere, but waste everyone's f***ing time while everyday people suffer and die.

Oh, and they'll try and pass a federal abortion ban so more women can die preventable deaths.

[worstblogever]

Well, I asked about the Senate because the House is 'theoretically lost'? Or do you think there's a strong chance it's still in play?

Five Thirty Eight has the House 80-20 for the GOP:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...e/?cid=rrpromo

I don't know, there's still a long way to go but if I had to bet money I would bet on Dems keeping control of the Senate and the GOP flipping the House.

I'm not even going to entertain that, because it seems disconnected from the actual polls of actual races, and is laser-focused on the generic-candidate ballot. It doesn't seem to look at how terrible the actual GOP candidates that are running for House again are.