|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 13:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 13:44 m4ini wrote:On December 06 2017 13:18 Doodsmack wrote:On December 06 2017 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 12:01 micronesia wrote:
My repeated attempts to try to get people to stop undermining the case against Roy Moore by referring to him as unsuitable because he's a pedo were ignored, and I eventually gave up. If the opposition had any brains, they'd drop the pedo act and focus on the fact Roy Moore has a rich history of being completely lawless. Yes this distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia is very important. Is it though? edit: distinct lack of discussion about Trump acknowledging Jerusalem though, or is it just so far back that i didn't see it? On your edit not really Its just kinda one of those things trump would do and is now doing that the next president will change.
And that is terrible for national security/anti-terrorism no matter how you look at it. I can almost guarantee Trump's generals are arguing against this move (I believe they put a stop to this move being made soon after Trump took office). Maybe Jared Kushner, who is in charge of Mideast peace, is winning out here.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It's great and I look forward to posting an approving note tomorrow when it's official. Also it seems like it may be hard to undo for the next guy, so we'll see how that works out.
|
On December 06 2017 13:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 13:18 Doodsmack wrote:On December 06 2017 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 12:01 micronesia wrote:
My repeated attempts to try to get people to stop undermining the case against Roy Moore by referring to him as unsuitable because he's a pedo were ignored, and I eventually gave up. If the opposition had any brains, they'd drop the pedo act and focus on the fact Roy Moore has a rich history of being completely lawless. Yes this distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia is very important. Is it though? edit: distinct lack of discussion about Trump acknowledging Jerusalem though, or is it just so far back that i didn't see it?
It got mentioned. There's also pretty bipartisan support for it. The democratic platform has called for Jerusalem to be the undivided capital of Israel for a while now.
It was a point of contention in the 2016 election but Hillary's delegates arguing Jerusalem is wholly Israel's and could never be part of a Palestinian state won out.
|
On December 06 2017 12:06 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 11:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 06 2017 11:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 11:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:[quote] I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause. Except that organization also spends most of their money on things that prevent abortions from being needed like contraceptives. If you hate abortions defunding planned parenthood is about the stupidest thing you could do, but it will continue to be a rallying cry. The largest abortion provider in the US will always get flak. Other organizations not so dedicated to aborting babies can offer contraceptives and better counseling. They even turn away expecting mothers wanting ultrasounds. It’s been clear from the beginning that they affirm only one choice. When those organizations actually exist you let me know and we can give federal funds to them instead. Those organizations could offer contraceptives and sex education, but instead they promote abstinence and then wonder why there are so many unwanted pregnancies. https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NATIONAL_PAGE1_cli-adf_pp_map_us_sept.jpgWe can start with those. More when the money gets redistributed more productively. Sure thing. Republicans already control all three branches and just made a budget, but did it include anything about this hugely important issue that a huge proportion of voters care about? I do recall reading that they managed to throw in some tidbit about life starting at contraception though. Gotta keep milking that golden goose instead of doing anything about it.
Sorry, are we going to always duck to the legislative process every time you're proved wrong about "those organizations already exist[ing]." Because we can just stop here if it's going to be a race from subject to subject.
|
On December 06 2017 14:20 Introvert wrote:
It's great and I look forward to posting an approving note tomorrow when it's official. Also it seems like it may be hard to undo for the next guy, so we'll see how that works out.
I don't know if this is a joke but theres no way that they're going to just sell the embassy in tel aviv after building it up as they have. It'll act as a consulate until the next president simply recognizes it as the new capital of Isreal and moves the staff back.
Also its just silly to label this "great" there isn't anything to gain from this and more to lose from this. Its the antithesis of a poor decision even if you support Israel and don't recognize a path to peace.
|
Jerusalem being declared the capital of Israel is going to find some pretty decent bipartisan support in the states. Hardly going to start some big outcry.
|
On December 06 2017 14:20 Introvert wrote:
It's great and I look forward to posting an approving note tomorrow when it's official. Also it seems like it may be hard to undo for the next guy, so we'll see how that works out.
It would be a welcome foreign policy decision from the Trump administration. He promised as much on the campaign trail a year and a half ago. You also couldn't draw a better contrast with the prior administration on that note.
|
On December 06 2017 14:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 14:20 Introvert wrote:
It's great and I look forward to posting an approving note tomorrow when it's official. Also it seems like it may be hard to undo for the next guy, so we'll see how that works out. I don't know if this is a joke but theres no way that they're going to just sell the embassy in tel aviv after building it up as they have. It'll act as a consulate until the next president simply recognizes it as the new capital of Isreal and moves the staff back. Also its just silly to label this "great" there isn't anything to gain from this and more to lose from this. Its the antithesis of a poor decision even if you support Israel and don't recognize a path to peace.
It will take time, but I'm talking about the politics of it. Who is going to get away with moving it back?
I'm threaded out for now, but calling it great is not silly, for the record.
|
On December 06 2017 14:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 14:20 Introvert wrote:
It's great and I look forward to posting an approving note tomorrow when it's official. Also it seems like it may be hard to undo for the next guy, so we'll see how that works out. It would be a welcome foreign policy decision from the Trump administration. He promised as much on the campaign trail a year and a half ago. You also couldn't draw a better contrast with the prior administration on that note.
Pretty sure Obama had to put the language back into the platform after the party removed it. He wasn't as "pro-Israel" as some Republicans, but he sided with the pro-Israel side of the party.
|
Just admit that there's no path to peace if you support Jerusalem being Israel's capital. It's not good to hold views that contradict each other.
|
On December 06 2017 14:35 Doodsmack wrote:
Just admit that there's no path to peace if you support Jerusalem being Israel's capital. It's not good to hold views that contradict each other.
You know this has long been the platform of Democrats as well as Republicans right?
|
On December 06 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 14:35 Doodsmack wrote:
Just admit that there's no path to peace if you support Jerusalem being Israel's capital. It's not good to hold views that contradict each other. You know this has long been the platform of Democrats as well as Republicans right?
And my post is probably the reason it hasn't actually happened.
|
On December 06 2017 14:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 14:35 Doodsmack wrote:
Just admit that there's no path to peace if you support Jerusalem being Israel's capital. It's not good to hold views that contradict each other. You know this has long been the platform of Democrats as well as Republicans right? And my post is probably the reason it hasn't actually happened.
So were they just lying?
|
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine.
|
On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine.
The US needs to dispense with the pretense and just back Israel from here on out. The Palestinians will never be allies, much less useful ones.
|
Trump wants his war, this is one of the most obvious provocations.
|
On December 06 2017 15:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine. The US needs to dispense with the pretense and just back Israel from here on out. The Palestinians will never be allies, much less useful ones.
I imagine you see Israel arming Myanmar so they can ethnically cleanse themselves of Muslims in the "pro" column for supporting Israel as opposed to the "con" column?
EDIT: I find it slightly ironic liberals are mad Trump did what they said they wanted to do but we're putting off indefinitely.
I think Trump has a plan for ME peace and it looks a lot like Myanmar.
|
United States43991 Posts
On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine.
It doesn't.
Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method.
The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit.
The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation.
There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either.
It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate.
As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to.
|
On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine. It doesn't. Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method. The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit. The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation. There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either. It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate. As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to.
Well, there is upside for weapons manufacturers, mercenaries, parasitic NPO's, extremists on both sides, and a few other entities.
|
On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine. It doesn't. Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method. The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit. The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation. There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either. It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate. As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to.
The US has been trying to "broker" this peace for how long now? 30+ years. It takes a lot of hubris and wishful thinking to believe the same thing we've been doing for decades has a decent shot at working. Fact is, the conditions aren't that different than the late 80s early 90s. The area has traded PLO for Hamas, and the situation in Iraq has destabilized the region. Pretending that the stance that Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is going to broker peace is pure folly. You can make the argument that we've went from .5% to 0%, but honestly, this is blowing smoke.
Also, for the record, I think the US should have nothing to do in the region. All we've done is created more danger for ourselves, lost treasure and blood, and for what? Because Israel is a "democracy"? Lol. Please. Give me my tax-money back and the thousands of American's lives lost for "hegemony" and Empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8v3t15U0AAZ_U4.jpg:large)
