|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 02 2023 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 08:40 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2023 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 03:49 KwarK wrote:
As before the question has to be “where is the bar, if not here?” Somewhere above aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign, for me at least. That’s not an answer. You keep saying where the bar isn’t. I keep asking where the bar is. It's above aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and below being an ideal socialist. That seems like a reasonable range any other reasonable person should find themselves in to me. I find it disturbing and sad that's treated like an unreasonably high bar. More specifically for me though, democratic socialism (non-reformist reforms) distinct from social democracy (electoralism/reformism), is basically my bar (which is hardly a secret). Aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians doesn't clear it and it shouldn't clear anyone's imo. Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 09:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 02 2023 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 03:49 KwarK wrote:
As before the question has to be “where is the bar, if not here?” Somewhere above aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign, for me at least. Do you accept that given the current situation in the region, the choices seem to be, supporting Israel, or accepting a widespread war in the M.E. with a very uncertain outcome, including the potential use of nuclear weapons? Because that is the premise Kwark is working from. If you don't believe that premise, then it's fair to just entirely move the bar, but I then do have to ask: what do you believe would happen in the situation where the US drops support for Israel right now? This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what their bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy.
Completely dodging answering the question I see. We get it socialism good America bad. It gets old.
|
Northern Ireland26760 Posts
On November 02 2023 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 08:40 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2023 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 03:49 KwarK wrote:
As before the question has to be “where is the bar, if not here?” Somewhere above aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign, for me at least. That’s not an answer. You keep saying where the bar isn’t. I keep asking where the bar is. It's above aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and below being an ideal socialist. That seems like a reasonable range any other reasonable person should find themselves in to me. I find it disturbing and sad that's treated like an unreasonably high bar. More specifically for me though, democratic socialism (non-reformist reforms) distinct from social democracy (electoralism/reformism), is basically my bar (which is hardly a secret). Aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians doesn't clear it and it shouldn't clear anyone's imo. Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 09:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 02 2023 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 03:49 KwarK wrote:
As before the question has to be “where is the bar, if not here?” Somewhere above aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign, for me at least. Do you accept that given the current situation in the region, the choices seem to be, supporting Israel, or accepting a widespread war in the M.E. with a very uncertain outcome, including the potential use of nuclear weapons? Because that is the premise Kwark is working from. If you don't believe that premise, then it's fair to just entirely move the bar, but I then do have to ask: what do you believe would happen in the situation where the US drops support for Israel right now? This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what their bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy.
I mean in a longer term sense, those would be my broader sensibilities too.
But if we’re talking within the framework of American politics and foreign policy as it stands today, realistically Biden is hardly going to reverse decades of travel and support in one particular direction. He lacks both the desire and the ability to do so, I doubt any singular individual could course correct to quite that direction.
Within those parameters, damned with low expectations though they are, Biden, in even a minute way pressuring a staying of the hand to even small degrees is both slightly above what I expected from his administration, and certainly above what I’d expect the alternative Trump administration to be doing
|
On November 03 2023 00:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 08:40 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2023 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 03:49 KwarK wrote:
As before the question has to be “where is the bar, if not here?” Somewhere above aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign, for me at least. That’s not an answer. You keep saying where the bar isn’t. I keep asking where the bar is. It's above aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and below being an ideal socialist. That seems like a reasonable range any other reasonable person should find themselves in to me. I find it disturbing and sad that's treated like an unreasonably high bar. More specifically for me though, democratic socialism (non-reformist reforms) distinct from social democracy (electoralism/reformism), is basically my bar (which is hardly a secret). Aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians doesn't clear it and it shouldn't clear anyone's imo. On November 02 2023 09:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 02 2023 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2023 03:49 KwarK wrote:
As before the question has to be “where is the bar, if not here?” Somewhere above aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign, for me at least. Do you accept that given the current situation in the region, the choices seem to be, supporting Israel, or accepting a widespread war in the M.E. with a very uncertain outcome, including the potential use of nuclear weapons? Because that is the premise Kwark is working from. If you don't believe that premise, then it's fair to just entirely move the bar, but I then do have to ask: what do you believe would happen in the situation where the US drops support for Israel right now? This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what their bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. I mean in a longer term sense, those would be my broader sensibilities too. But if we’re talking within the framework of American politics and foreign policy as it stands today, realistically Biden is hardly going to reverse decades of travel and support in one particular direction. He lacks both the desire and the ability to do so, I doubt any singular individual could course correct to quite that direction. Within those parameters, damned with low expectations though they are, Biden, in even a minute way pressuring a staying of the hand to even small degrees is both slightly above what I expected from his administration, and certainly above what I’d expect the alternative Trump administration to be doing
Yes, if one is committed to socdem US hamster wheel politics, Biden is the "evil" to support.
I presume I don't need to explain that I'm not committed to US hamster wheel politics, so my bar for praising US politicians is going to stay above aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. I encourage everyone raise their bar at least that high if we want any hope for a future worth living in.
|
Realistically, what is an American policy that might be a workable solution for the Jewish epicenter in the midst of a Muslim wasp nest?
|
On November 03 2023 02:25 Uldridge wrote:
Realistically, what is an American policy that might be a workable solution for the Jewish epicenter in the midst of a Muslim wasp nest?
It isn’t really possible with the current protocol of forcing Israel to be the adult in the room. The entire paradigm of Israel policy is predicated on the basic idea that neighboring Muslim theocracies can’t be reasoned with and that the “Shared Arab purpose” recently described by Egypt’s leadership is a premise for all relations.
Because there is this weird dynamic where on one hand we decide Iran and other countries will try to exterminate Israel whenever possible, but we also decide Israel needs to be as peaceful as possible, we’re stuck in this halfway state where Israel is permitted to stay alive, but no long term military standstill can be achieved.
I remain committed in my belief that both Palestinians and Israelis have proven beyond doubt that they are not capable of behaving and that the land needs to be used for some common human purpose, but I don’t expect my idea to gain any momentum any time soon. They each have a book that says god loves the idea of them having this one specific piece of land. And so here we are. They should both just be given somewhere else to live because they have clearly lost their Jerusalem privileges. Fact is, the choice was to either put Israel somewhere safe or engage in whatever military conflict is necessary to create long term safety for Israel. The world has managed to find the worst possible “compromise” by prolonging this embarrassing conflict.
What makes the situation even funnier is the fact that Egypt and Jordan, the 2 closest neighbors to Palestinians, want nothing to do with them because of previous military conflict. Those borders are closed for a reason and they’d stay closed with or without Israel around. So we have 2 separate groups, each of which has an extremely dicey relationship with their neighbors, who also hate each other, and we are telling them to share a house. It’s so comically stupid. I totally love it in a self loathing way.
With that rant out of the way, here are the only 2 American policies I support:
[1] Relocate all Israelis to somewhere in the US. Get Arab nations to chip in. Gather enough funding to pull off an ACTUAL relocation, where it is a legitimately great situation for Israelis. Rather than being a bunch of refugees, they would have everything and more compared to what they had in Israel. It would additionally function as an enormous investment in American infrastructure by creating the entire region from scratch. Similar to how Dubai is essentially terraformed. Find some useless land in North Dakota or something and just carve it out and call it Israel. The key here is that Israelis would be "ethnically cleansed" from the region, but at least the whole missile problem stops being a thing. And they'd have a straight up better life with a better house and whatnot compared to what they had in Israel. Make it a global effort.
[2] Give Israel all the weapons and support it needs to entrench itself as a regional power such that all of these ideological fantasies of killing all Jews shared by Israel's neighbors are entirely benign and everyone moves on. Any amount of military aggression towards Israel needs to be firmly a terrible idea such that Iran and others don't even try it and just seek peaceful ceasefires. This would require the US to be willing to guarantee both Israel and Israel's neighbors complete and total safety from each other. Can't just let Israel run around conquering Muslim nations. It would need to be the US serving as the adult in the room to keep the kids playing nice with each other. But the long story short is that the US would need to be willing to roll their sleeves up to create lasting peace through force.
I prefer option 1. But I understand both options are impossible because of the nature of global politics.
|
Right, because other than those 2 options, absolutely nothing else is conceivable!
False dichotomy much?
|
On November 03 2023 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
Right, because other than those 2 options, absolutely nothing else is conceivable!
False dichotomy much?
I never said no other options exist. I just said those are the only 2 I support. Just giving my 2 cents since the question was asking people what their thoughts are. But I of course recognize other people have other ideas.
|
Hm. It's not that there's only two possible options. It's just that there's only two possible options that you support . Everything else is inconceivable! I'm glad that we got that very important distinction out of the way. Definitely no false dichotomy anymore!
|
On November 03 2023 07:10 Acrofales wrote:
Hm. It's not that there's only two possible options. It's just that there's only two possible options that you support . Everything else is inconceivable! I'm glad that we got that very important distinction out of the way. Definitely no false dichotomy anymore!
Other options are definitely conceivable. And many options would also be an improvement. But I think we have sufficient data to conclude the 2 aren't responsible enough to get along. They aren't sufficiently capable and we need to move on. That being said, I of course understand the fact that a net-positive is still a net-positive and the current dumpster fire could be improved through other avenues. They just aren't my top choices. And its mostly all the same stuff people have said before, so didn't really feel like it needed to be mentioned here.
I'm sorry if what I said was bad in some way, but i don't think your hostility is warranted. I'm just giving my 2 cents and not really trying to impose my views on you or anything. Just participating in the group discussion.
|
Kwark praised Biden's approach, which is neither the former nod the latter. GH criticized it and I find it hard to believe he'd endorse either of your 2 possible approaches. I'm not sure anyone else proposed any support at all, bit it seems sufficient that neither of the actual supposed solutions solve anything.
|
Of course Mohdoo's preferred solution to the problem involves the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region. I guess that's the only solution you would need. It would be the final one, so to speak.
|
Canada11509 Posts
They each have a book that says god loves the idea of them having this one specific piece of land.
Do they though? I'm not super familiar with Islam, but I don't think the Jerusalem claim is really based upon their holy writings. I mean they briefly prayed towards Jerusalem when trying to win over the Jews (and worshiped on Saturday before switching to Friday.) However, I think the Jerusalem claim is a retroactive interpretation of 'from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque.' The latter of which I suspect is an idiom more akin to 'to the ends of the earth'. Being unconquered, at the time of the writing, Jerusalem would have had no mosques to be the furthest. However, afterwards the Ummayads then built the mosque in Jerusalem and then named it the furthest mosque, thus tying it into the above mentioned quote- but it's an anachronistic reading.
|
On November 03 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote:
Of course Mohdoo's preferred solution to the problem involves the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region. I guess that's the only solution you would need. It would be the final one, so to speak.
The goal is avoiding death and addressing the core of the problem. The goal is not catering to religious sensitivities. I think cultural relativism is what got us into this mess, and it can't be a component of getting us out of the mess.
We ought to assume military conflict is simply permanent between the 2 so long as they think their respective religious books are true. If the problem was going to be solved through cultural development, it would have happened within the last 1000 years. They aren't capable of it. It won't happen. They are 2 factions at war and they will be at war until war stops feeling worthwhile because they both believe in magic, but the magic they each believe in conflict with each other's.
So once we conclude they are each individually incapable of distancing themselves from belief in magic, the question is how we create a situation where their conflict is no longer possible. That is the big key here. It isn't acceptable to just assume they'll behave in a way that is a fit for the 21st century. Someone needs to step in and force them to behave. Whether that's from relocation or whatever, heck if i know. i just know its time to move on and stop having faith in their ability to get along.
On November 03 2023 08:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +They each have a book that says god loves the idea of them having this one specific piece of land. Do they though? I'm not super familiar with Islam, but I don't think the Jerusalem claim is really based upon their holy writings. I mean they briefly prayed towards Jerusalem when trying to win over the Jews (and worshiped on Saturday before switching to Friday.) However, I think the Jerusalem claim is a retroactive interpretation of 'from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque.' The latter of which I suspect is an idiom more akin to 'to the ends of the earth'. Being unconquered, at the time of the writing, Jerusalem would have had no mosques to be the furthest. However, afterwards the Ummayads then built the mosque in Jerusalem and then named it the furthest mosque, thus tying it into the above mentioned quote- but it's an anachronistic reading.
Here is what I read to familiarize myself with this cringey dogshit of a dispute because people were right to point out i was very ignorant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#In_Judaism
after reading this, I reached the above conclusion lol
|
On November 03 2023 09:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote:
Of course Mohdoo's preferred solution to the problem involves the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region. I guess that's the only solution you would need. It would be the final one, so to speak. The goal is avoiding death and addressing the core of the problem. The goal is not catering to religious sensitivities. I think cultural relativism is what got us into this mess, and it can't be a component of getting us out of the mess. We ought to assume military conflict is simply permanent between the 2 so long as they think their respective religious books are true. If the problem was going to be solved through cultural development, it would have happened within the last 1000 years. They aren't capable of it. It won't happen. They are 2 factions at war and they will be at war until war stops feeling worthwhile because they both believe in magic, but the magic they each believe in conflict with each other's. So once we conclude they are each individually incapable of distancing themselves from belief in magic, the question is how we create a situation where their conflict is no longer possible. That is the big key here. It isn't acceptable to just assume they'll behave in a way that is a fit for the 21st century. Someone needs to step in and force them to behave. Whether that's from relocation or whatever, heck if i know. i just know its time to move on and stop having faith in their ability to get along.
What exactly do you think it looks like to force an entire nation of people to abandon their homes and their entire lives to relocate to bumfuck North Dakota? Your goal is to avoid death but it hasn't occurred to you that people might be willing to fight to the death for their land, as evidenced by the fact that they've literally fought to the death over their land many times? All this effort to try to eradicate Israel, who would have thought that all you needed was to kindly ask them to get on the boat to Mohdoo island.
Ironically your idea is almost identical to postings I've made on the internet when I was around 16 years old and I'm sure we're not the only two to have this idea either. Basically the only difference is you offered North Dakota and I offered something like Wyoming or Montana. Well, the other difference is I look back at those posts I've made and now think "Wow I was really dumb and clueless back then" but you seem quite content with this idea.
|
On November 03 2023 09:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote:
Of course Mohdoo's preferred solution to the problem involves the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region. I guess that's the only solution you would need. It would be the final one, so to speak. The goal is avoiding death and addressing the core of the problem. The goal is not catering to religious sensitivities. I think cultural relativism is what got us into this mess, and it can't be a component of getting us out of the mess. We ought to assume military conflict is simply permanent between the 2 so long as they think their respective religious books are true. If the problem was going to be solved through cultural development, it would have happened within the last 1000 years. They aren't capable of it. It won't happen. They are 2 factions at war and they will be at war until war stops feeling worthwhile because they both believe in magic, but the magic they each believe in conflict with each other's. So once we conclude they are each individually incapable of distancing themselves from belief in magic, the question is how we create a situation where their conflict is no longer possible. That is the big key here. It isn't acceptable to just assume they'll behave in a way that is a fit for the 21st century. Someone needs to step in and force them to behave. Whether that's from relocation or whatever, heck if i know. i just know its time to move on and stop having faith in their ability to get along. Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 08:58 Falling wrote:They each have a book that says god loves the idea of them having this one specific piece of land. Do they though? I'm not super familiar with Islam, but I don't think the Jerusalem claim is really based upon their holy writings. I mean they briefly prayed towards Jerusalem when trying to win over the Jews (and worshiped on Saturday before switching to Friday.) However, I think the Jerusalem claim is a retroactive interpretation of 'from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque.' The latter of which I suspect is an idiom more akin to 'to the ends of the earth'. Being unconquered, at the time of the writing, Jerusalem would have had no mosques to be the furthest. However, afterwards the Ummayads then built the mosque in Jerusalem and then named it the furthest mosque, thus tying it into the above mentioned quote- but it's an anachronistic reading. Here is what I read to familiarize myself with this cringey dogshit of a dispute because people were right to point out i was very ignorant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#In_Judaismafter reading this, I reached the above conclusion lol
It is also completely irrelevant what the books say.
As long as the people believe that their books tells them something, that is what is important. And here, both sides fervently believe that their book tells them that they must own Jerusalem. So compromise is impossible, because fucking religion.
|
On November 03 2023 09:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote:
Of course Mohdoo's preferred solution to the problem involves the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region. I guess that's the only solution you would need. It would be the final one, so to speak. The goal is avoiding death and addressing the core of the problem. The goal is not catering to religious sensitivities. I think cultural relativism is what got us into this mess, and it can't be a component of getting us out of the mess. We ought to assume military conflict is simply permanent between the 2 so long as they think their respective religious books are true. If the problem was going to be solved through cultural development, it would have happened within the last 1000 years. They aren't capable of it. It won't happen. They are 2 factions at war and they will be at war until war stops feeling worthwhile because they both believe in magic, but the magic they each believe in conflict with each other's. So once we conclude they are each individually incapable of distancing themselves from belief in magic, the question is how we create a situation where their conflict is no longer possible. That is the big key here. It isn't acceptable to just assume they'll behave in a way that is a fit for the 21st century. Someone needs to step in and force them to behave. Whether that's from relocation or whatever, heck if i know. i just know its time to move on and stop having faith in their ability to get along. Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 08:58 Falling wrote:They each have a book that says god loves the idea of them having this one specific piece of land. Do they though? I'm not super familiar with Islam, but I don't think the Jerusalem claim is really based upon their holy writings. I mean they briefly prayed towards Jerusalem when trying to win over the Jews (and worshiped on Saturday before switching to Friday.) However, I think the Jerusalem claim is a retroactive interpretation of 'from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque.' The latter of which I suspect is an idiom more akin to 'to the ends of the earth'. Being unconquered, at the time of the writing, Jerusalem would have had no mosques to be the furthest. However, afterwards the Ummayads then built the mosque in Jerusalem and then named it the furthest mosque, thus tying it into the above mentioned quote- but it's an anachronistic reading. Here is what I read to familiarize myself with this cringey dogshit of a dispute because people were right to point out i was very ignorant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#In_Judaismafter reading this, I reached the above conclusion lol
Again with this claim, that this conflict is older then 150 years. Stop it, it's not. The Jewish population of Israel was expelled from Judea by the Roman's. The people that lived there afterwards were Christians and minority of jews. Then it was conquered by the caliphate and slowly turned muslimic. With a short Intermezzo of kingdom of Jerusalem, and later the turks taking over for the Arabs, the country remained like that until the ziinist movement was born, mainly Muslim Arab with Jewish and Christian minorities and almost no religious conflict. Compare that to almost every country in Europe and Israel, Judea, Palestina, is the most stable country by far over the last 2000 years. Just because we decided our conflicts needed to end when this one started to really take off doesn't mean they are barbaric zealots that have killed each other for centuries.
|
House Republicans voted for a $14 billion aid package for a wealthy country fighting a war against people that have no air force, navy, or standing army. I'm sure soon they will go back to complaining about the deficit.
|
On November 05 2023 19:32 BlackJack wrote:
House Republicans voted for a $14 billion aid package for a wealthy country fighting a war against people that have no air force, navy, or standing army. I'm sure soon they will go back to complaining about the deficit.
Expecially as they plan to fund this package through directly increasing the deficit. Not even tax cuts but directly though the funding to go after tax cheats.
|
On November 06 2023 07:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2023 19:32 BlackJack wrote:
House Republicans voted for a $14 billion aid package for a wealthy country fighting a war against people that have no air force, navy, or standing army. I'm sure soon they will go back to complaining about the deficit. Expecially as they plan to fund this package through directly increasing the deficit. Not even tax cuts but directly though the funding to go after tax cheats.
The Republicans frame it as defunding zealous taxmen hellbent on squeezing money from honest Republican small business owners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
