Keep trying...
JR
#meh
JR
#meh
Donald trump. what is your take on him?
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
T
tands
Guest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UXircX3VdM
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
Over 40 lawsuits, 1000 signatures by diplomats..... Starting out well for the narcissist...
Yes, I remember this. I believe that America has probably learned this lesson now.
I presume you are talking about Israel here? I have said this before, but Israel was attacked from day one. The Arabs wanted Israel gone but they lost the wars they started and their territory in the process. There is a responsibility audit here. If you don't want to lose your territory don't risk it by starting a war. Iranians are Persians not Arabs, it is not their business but they made it so. They are not strong enough to challenge Israel directly so they use the terrorist organisation Hezbollah to do it for them.
Over the years, I have seen Israel get stronger and the countries that attacked her get weaker or just implode like Syria. All the Arabs are now fighting among themselves, I look at outcomes, I think Iran needs to be very careful how it deals with Israel.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
a; it wasn't the Palestinian people that attacked. It wasn't the women, it wasn't the children, it wasn't the elderly. Neither was it most Palestinian men. it was mostly an attack by multiple surrounding Arab nations. Bundling all Arabs together as if they were just homogenous blob sounds very convenient to create a moral narrative to excuse the current colonization but nevertheless way out of line when viewing this objectively.
b; regardless of whether or not they attacked, pretty much the entire planet has signed international treaties that make annexation of land through military victory illegal. There is no leeway on this issue. Even if you are attacked by a neighboring nation you do not have the right to annex the territory you end up taking during your defense. Even if a nation would be justified in temporarily keeping said territory, half a century worth of "keeping" along with building settlements for your own ethnically and religiously homogenous population does no longer qualify as "defense". Any such claim is ludicrous.
c; as a bit of a context here.... You're a Brit expat. Your Britain held Palestine as a "mandate". People outside of the region, i.e. you guys, decided to divide the territory up against the wishes of the majority indigenous population. When they refused it was then their own fault apparently. It all feels a bit.... "odd".... You being a Brit blaming the formerly governed for not accepting what you guys decided should be done with their land.
d; on the topic of the legitimacy of states one can also note that if it is sufficient for any group to be a majority within a geographical area (subset) they want to become a state, then if that suffices to justify Israel the West Bank and Gaza is equally justified using exactly the same principle. So we're back to the principle of universality again. Do you want to use that argument fairly and equally, or is there some difference between these two peoples that justify changing the standard? This isn't an insignificant question, because if you accept that a majority population should be allowed to create their own state then by definition Palestine is a de facto state (West Bank and Gaza) and then in turn Israel is still guilty of attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing foreign territory. If you DON'T apply that principle equally the only real alternative is that Israel earned that territory during military conquest - which is what you imply. But if the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory, then you have to explain how a nation within its borders builds fences and walls to segregate its population with one ethnic/religious group in one area, with fewer rights and far less wealth, just like South Africa did to the black Africans.
We are where we are today, and there is no encyclopedia in which what is done now isn't either colonization or apartheid. It's one or the other. And your response to that is essentially "it's their own fault". I find that to be a highly immoral stance.
And I think it's just a convenient way of not having to accept that the west is actively sponsoring a supposedly civilized nation's colonization of neighboring territory in violation of international law, with thousands of dead civilians as a result, many of them women and children.
DaveP said:
Americans aren't Israelis. See?
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
Just so I'm clear, or the above was too much text;
- either what's done there constitutes colonization or it doesn't.
- either you justify that by saying it was "their" own fault, or you don't.
- if you don't, then you either are ok with colonization in the 21st century for some other reason, or you aren't.
- if you aren't, then you shouldn't be ok with any nation supporting it either.
And that was my point. It's colonization and subjugation of a people, right now, in the 21st century, and nations support it militarily and financially. That's something we can juxtapose other nations to when we cry over how bad they are.
- either what's done there constitutes colonization or it doesn't.
- either you justify that by saying it was "their" own fault, or you don't.
- if you don't, then you either are ok with colonization in the 21st century for some other reason, or you aren't.
- if you aren't, then you shouldn't be ok with any nation supporting it either.
And that was my point. It's colonization and subjugation of a people, right now, in the 21st century, and nations support it militarily and financially. That's something we can juxtapose other nations to when we cry over how bad they are.
I think you summed it up very well, I think it's their own fault.
Germany started WW2 and lost and got occupied.
Japan attacked America and lost and got occupied.
The Arabs were in the Arab League, the risk to their women and children was not high on their priority list when they thought they could attack and win.
Israel is the only democracy in a troubled region, it does not surprise me that America supports it.
DaveP
Germany started WW2 and lost and got occupied.
Japan attacked America and lost and got occupied.
The Arabs were in the Arab League, the risk to their women and children was not high on their priority list when they thought they could attack and win.
Israel is the only democracy in a troubled region, it does not surprise me that America supports it.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
Cool. So the only thing that's a bit weird to me is that
- You don't deserve any blame for the colonization your forefathers carried out
- Palestinians today have themselves to blame for what their neighbors did 70 years ago
DaveP said:
That's clearly untrue, and has been untrue for decades. But it's the typical conservative narrative, so no wonder you repeat it.
PS: You'll have to remind me just where we still see current expansions of ethnically and religiously homogenous settlements in Japan and Germany by the current occupying powers. I must have missed that memo.
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
How is Iran not a democracy?
???mattiasNYC said:
Iran is another country that pretends to hold democratic elections but the candidates allowed to run are selected by the mullahs, so the outcomes are controlled by the religious leadership. Then that elected leader is only the number two man, who answers to the top religious leader who doesn't get voted on.
I was upset in 2009 when the green movement rose up to protest the sham election. Several western leaders publicly offered their support for the street protesters, while the US government remained silent.
JR
[edit- Iran is debating whether their recent ballistic missile test is in violation of the UN resolution, prohibiting such. /edit]
Trump's Muslim ban was more and less than a Muslim ban. It was an utterly stupid and useless piece of crap insofar as fighting terrorism goes--a complete joke. The justification for it--that the process for vetting people coming into the US is in need of revision--is utter crap. It's a lie that his supporters can latch onto and repeat ad nauseam on the interwebs. It's also utterly disgusting (and quite telling) that the countries not on the list included the majority Muslim countries where Trump has business interests. So, so very classy and presidential of him (sarcasm, JR. I don't like putting little faces in my posts.)
It did achieve a lot of other ends. It revved up all his Muslim-fearing supporters. It gave him the opportunity to see how far he could go in abusing his authority and flouting the laws of this country. It was another opportunity to root out govt. employees who put the rule of law and sanity ahead of blind loyalty to the nutbag in the White House. And it's a nice trial balloon for what is to come--because, sadly, xenophobia and racism are a huge motivator behind the actions of the current regime. So no doubt we'll be seeing more and worse in the days ahead.
It did achieve a lot of other ends. It revved up all his Muslim-fearing supporters. It gave him the opportunity to see how far he could go in abusing his authority and flouting the laws of this country. It was another opportunity to root out govt. employees who put the rule of law and sanity ahead of blind loyalty to the nutbag in the White House. And it's a nice trial balloon for what is to come--because, sadly, xenophobia and racism are a huge motivator behind the actions of the current regime. So no doubt we'll be seeing more and worse in the days ahead.
hodad said:
I use faux html tags to indicate things like that...
for example [sarcasm] xxx... [/sarcasm] could concisely convey sarcastic intent between the tags.
JR
I understand that this is an attempt at deconstructing Dave's argument. However, the situation/relationship between Britain and its former colonies is not really comparable to the situation between Israel and its neighbours today, and not comparable to the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis either.
Because (1) the latter tension has been pretty much ongoing as violence for the last 70 years with many failed attempts at reconciliation, boken promises and malignant behaviour by certain groups of people on both sides, whereas (2) the former is today not violent, unless we claimed that some economic relations are, well, if not violent, then at least destructive -- although I'd prefer to say they are not necessarily constructive.
Apart from that: anyone discusssing this topic here ever been to Palestine, ever been to Israel? Ideally both to talk to people there and compare realities directly?
Back to Trump:
I don't really know what to say... apart from maybe that he's indeed willing to delivering on all his promises -- for better or worse.
madswitcher
Well-known member
hodad said:
Interestingly, according to any article in the (London) Times yesterday, that list of countries was drawn up by President Obama for just such an action, but not put executed, and not the new Trump administration.
Mike
In fact Pres Obama instituted a similar temporary ban from Iraq when fingerprints on a roadside IED were traced to two immigrants from Iraq that were already here in the US.madswitcher said:
This temporary halt was not handled as smoothly as possible and one can question the wisdom of doing this before his cabinet is fully in place, but that looks like it will take more time than it did for the last administrations. In 09 Obama had 7 cabinet appointments confirmed the day he was sworn in. We missed that this time by a country mile. Trump was criticized for the speed he named his cabinet appointments in, now Democrats are boycotting some committee meetings to stall the confirmation process.
I won't predict how this will play in middle America. The partisan divide seems ratcheted up a few notches from even the recent past. Of course I suspect opinions will vary depending on personal politics.
JR
PS: There is a theory for why Bo Bergdahl wasn't pardoned by Pres Obama in his flurry of 11th hour commutations. Bergdahl's lawyers are arguing that then candidate Trump's campaign statements about the case will prejudice the court officers (who report to Trump as commander in chief). Leave it to a lawyer to come up with that. Military justice is not the same as civilian, so we'll see if this defense works for them. I doubt Pres Obama traded a handful of important bad guys from Gitmo, just to put Bergdahl in the stockade (while he was pretty motivated to reduce the detainee count in Gitmo).
I find your system of constructing a government quite strange, why should the opposing party have any say in its make-up?
Why can't the President just select his team and get on with it?
In the UK, the entire government would have been in place from Nov 9.
I also find the politicization of the Supreme Court a bit worrying, isn't it better to have the judiciary entirely independent from political bias?
DaveP
Why can't the President just select his team and get on with it?
In the UK, the entire government would have been in place from Nov 9.
I also find the politicization of the Supreme Court a bit worrying, isn't it better to have the judiciary entirely independent from political bias?
DaveP
dmp
Well-known member
Rudy Guiliani has said that Trump wanted to do a muslim ban and asked his team for a plan to do it. As with many Republican ideological goals, they figure out the best way to polish the turd before hoisting it on the people.
There's all kinds of analysis trying to understand this executive order. Was it just disorganized & poorly executed by a new administration that hasn't gotten its footing yet? Or was it intending to be controversial to see how the country reacts? We will see what follows it.
The gutting of career employees though is making it clear what Trump meant by 'drain the swamp'. Not the lobbyists or dysfunctional political apparatus, but the career servants that make the country run.
Re Bergdahl:
Obama probably thought a US soldier shouldn't be left on the battlefield, even if there was suspicious of his desertion. Trading prisoners is never a good precedent to set - and must have been a difficult decision.
Generally pardons do not preempt a person's trial. For instance, Bush let Scooter Libby have his day in court, and only commuted his sentence once he was convicted. Whether it really reduces the appearance of a corrupt system in a case like that, I can't really say. Nixon was pardoned before conviction. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was pardoned after indictment but before trial.
But for a President to pardon someone accused of a crime, preempting a trial, IMO has a "bigly" appearance of corruption.
The pardon list of Obama shows the most class and character of any in recent history. The most controversial commutation was Manning, who had served 7 years of a 35 yr sentence.
It looks like DeVos might not get enough votes from Republicans for confirmation now, which will be a great victory against Trump's anti Gov cabal..
There's all kinds of analysis trying to understand this executive order. Was it just disorganized & poorly executed by a new administration that hasn't gotten its footing yet? Or was it intending to be controversial to see how the country reacts? We will see what follows it.
The gutting of career employees though is making it clear what Trump meant by 'drain the swamp'. Not the lobbyists or dysfunctional political apparatus, but the career servants that make the country run.
Re Bergdahl:
Obama probably thought a US soldier shouldn't be left on the battlefield, even if there was suspicious of his desertion. Trading prisoners is never a good precedent to set - and must have been a difficult decision.
Generally pardons do not preempt a person's trial. For instance, Bush let Scooter Libby have his day in court, and only commuted his sentence once he was convicted. Whether it really reduces the appearance of a corrupt system in a case like that, I can't really say. Nixon was pardoned before conviction. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was pardoned after indictment but before trial.
But for a President to pardon someone accused of a crime, preempting a trial, IMO has a "bigly" appearance of corruption.
The pardon list of Obama shows the most class and character of any in recent history. The most controversial commutation was Manning, who had served 7 years of a 35 yr sentence.
It looks like DeVos might not get enough votes from Republicans for confirmation now, which will be a great victory against Trump's anti Gov cabal..
Divided government. Minority rights.
When the rule of law overturns what the politically powerful want to do, it becomes politicized. How would the judiciary be selected if not through some political method (election or appointment)? Lottery? {a joke}
