What is pulling America Apart?

[RDKirk]

This sounds like far right fear mongering nonsense.

When I was active duty as an intelligence analyst, I read a lot of Soviet theory and Islamic political writings in order to "see the game from my opponent's side of the board." I think it's important to read what the seminal theorists actually say, rather than what their apologists say about them.

I used to think this stuff was far-right fear mongering until I took the time to go to the websites of various left-wing organizations, read the seminal books of their theorists, watch the videos they take of themselves in operation, and realize that a great deal of that right-wing alarm is duly warranted. They don't hide it.

 

[RDKirk]

If the President is using illegal or coercive means to control the other 2 branches....the military can step in, but that's an ideal situation and career suicide.

The Branches are co-equal, unless they roll over on their own account. What, then, is "illegal?" The military will not--nor should it--determine what is "Constitutional" on its own.

The problem with a military coup is that it's a genie nearly impossible to re-bottle. The Constitution is effectively dead beyond that point. Perhaps the only way to salvage that situation, after the smoke clears, would be for all flag officers to resign en masse and remove themselves forever from public life.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Branches are co-equal, unless they roll over on their own account. What, then, is "illegal?" The military will not--nor should it--determine what is "Constitutional" on its own.

2 realistic scenarios which I could envision as possibilities...

1. The president turns his focus on reorganization and restructuring law enforcement agencies with the goal of either getting enough dirt on legislators (or framing them) and justices that they must do as he says or they go to jail.

2. The President completely replaces entire agencies with people loyal only to himself, then ignores any laws passed by veto or unenforcement and likewise ignores any SCOTUS rulings he disagrees we, essentially taking advantage of the inability of the other two branches to execute the law.

The problem with a military coup is that it's a genie nearly impossible to re-bottle. The Constitution is effectively dead beyond that point. Perhaps the only way to salvage that situation, after the smoke clears, would be for all flag officers to resign en masse and remove themselves forever from public life.

Yeah that's why I called it career suicide lol.

 

[stevil]

When I was active duty as an intelligence analyst, I read a lot of Soviet theory and Islamic political writings in order to "see the game from my opponent's side of the board." I think it's important to read what the seminal theorists actually say, rather than what their apologists say about them.

I used to think this stuff was far-right fear mongering until I took the time to go to the websites of various left-wing organizations, read the seminal books of their theorists, watch the videos they take of themselves in operation, and realize that a great deal of that right-wing alarm is duly warranted. They don't hide it.

I live in a reasonable country, a pragmatic one. Free, democratic, pragmatic and practical. Luckily we don't have 24x7 news channels, although Rupert Mudooch gives people Fox News with some common Sky tv bundles.
I guess most first world democratic "western" nations like ours are pretty similar, but USA is a different beast altogether.
Like most people in my country I'm not overly political, I'm pragmatic and not idealogical.
I've voted for both the major parties (the right one, the left one), I don't think there is much difference between them.
I like the idea that when the country starts going too far left we typically vote in the Right party and when the country is going too far right we typically vote in the Left party.
I have no issues with people that are leaning right or leaning left.
We don't have massive political rallies, I would never buy political merchandise and I've never been to a political event.
We don't have wedge issues. No party campaigns on abortion, or guns, or anti-woke (well NZ First did a little of anti-woke in their campaign ad but it seemed like he was trying to bring some USA nonsense over here, his part got very little of the NZ vote). But NZ elections are about policies, not fear mongering, not smear campaigns, not wedge issues.

Looking at USA, looking at USA media, I'd have to say the Democrat party seem normal. The Republican party seem crazy, wacky and extreme.
I really don't hear much about the Democrat party that is alarming.
They aren't trying to control thoughts. In fact they are socially liberal, which means they value diversity which means they are all for people of different cultures, different religious beliefs, they are not trying to make a society of homogenous people.

I know that the USA right wing spin try to make out the the left are Marxists and Socialists, but they most certainly are not.
The left do want a single payer health system. But that doesn't make them Socialists nor anti capitalism.
single payer health systems is what most of the 1st world democratic countries have, and it works and our health is affordable and noone misses out. It is certainly nothing to be scared of.
With regards to abortion, the Democrats want to put choice into the people's hands, they aren't forcing anyone to do anything. They are allowing the people to make their own decisions rather than the government to make it for them.
With regards to transgender, LGQBT the Democrats are also allowing the people to make their own decisions, not wanting to force anything on anyone.

From your post that I commented on you said
"or that person faces coerced re-education."
I can only presume you are referring to that time that Hilary Clinton said something about "the MAGA extreme needing to be deprogrammed".
As far as I understood it, she wasn't making a campaign promise, she wasn't proposing govt intervention. She was just making an off the cuff comment about the Cult like behaviour of some of Trump's most extreme loyalists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They can think what they like. And re-education we can actually define as a little extra education. As in 'There has been a complaint. Maybe you didn't know this...but we have a responsibility to all our employers and they shouldn't be subjected to comments such as those you are reported to have said. Assuming that what you said is not in dispute, take this as a verbal warning not to repeat it, or anything like it while you are here. The next warning will be a written one.'

I think that's quite reasonable.

There's that totalitarian mindset I was talking about...

Think whatever you like...just don't express it or ever say things contrary to the rules.

Who cares about the 4th Ammentment right? Any others we can throw out?

There's multiple circumstances under which your 4th amendment rights are diminished or gone entirely. You only seem concerned about this one though.

Against which country?

I believe that the intended effect is that they are often transnational groups.

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II.

Wow....we haven't gone to war since WW2?

We can't declare war on a crime, only a country.

Look...I told you how terrorists are designated in my understanding.

I think that is one (of many) things we disagree on. I believe justice should be the a fre societies court system, not an individual citizen's bank account.

Could you rewrite that last sentence?

That is what is known as an "anomaly." All the statistics say that justice is based on the price tag of your legal team.

I've never seen that. I've seen statistics showing that any lawyer is better than none, and expensive lawyers are better than cheap or free ones...but never saw anything that directly said "make x money, get y result".

From first-hand accounts of detainees, news stories, documentaries, University essays, and books.

Ok...can you provide a source?

Again, did he dismiss it or explain why it happened? Did he actually say something like "They commit genocide over there and that's okay for them"?

The statement that genocide is a cultural norm in China can either be seen as an excuse or dismissal....it's not a valid explanation, because genocide isn't a cultural norm in China.

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'​

That's missing quite a lot of context.

Did the government force this company to remove these jokes?

No.

Did the government go after people's jobs?

Well in some cases... yeah. They appeared to have cooperated with the media to ruin the reputation of doctors who voiced disagreement over the official covid narrative.

Would you agree that a business can be run how the owner sees fit as long as they don't discriminate against people's race/sex/ethnicity?

Well they still have other laws to consider, but sure.

You can discriminate, however, against ideas you do not wish to post through your privately owned server.

True.

Did the government require companies to fire people who spew discriminatory or Fascist rhetoric?

Not to my knowledge.

No, but people on social media are free to react to racist/sexist/homophobic statements as they see fit.

Including seeking the punishment of people who disagree with them politically?
.

Unless it is a social media platform whose owners are racist/sexist/homophobic.

Actually, I'm not certain how that works.

Then they can kick people off of their platform who believe in equality as they see fit.

I'm not concerned about people getting "kicked off platforms"....I'm concerned about them losing their jobs.

It just so happens that those ideas are now in the minority so they will be attacked in higher numbers (socially).

I have no problem with anyone attacking an idea. I have a problem with people seeking to get people fired from their jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with their jobs.

If one doesn't want their ideas or opinions attacked, perhaps they should not post them on mainstream media.

I agree.

That includes racist jokes.

Of course.

If Dave Chappell's jokes are banned from a particular platform, you can still see him live, buy his albums, or download his videos.

I used him as an example....I'm not really concerned about him though. I'm concerned about people who don't have millions to retire on tomorrow.

What makes that different from any other President?

I don't think we've had this degree of illegal child labor since the 1930s. It's a lot.

The President doesn't exploit undocumented workers, employers do.

And those employers pay for the President's campaign. Biden doesn't spend his money getting elected....but Trump does....and now you know why they don't want him winning.

There are also Americans who are not willing to cross the cartels.

Yeah? I've never heard of more than a handful of examples and they don't end well. Ripping off cartels is practically a death sentence.

I just deleted the next part since you provided no evidence of your claims of crooked customs officers. I'm not interested in your fanfiction.

A fence is very effective for the White House, or even my own yard.

Why? People can get over your yard fence. They can even tunnel under it.

Too many places where there are hundreds of minimally monitored land. Some totally unmonitored.

Building the wall is a step in fixing that.

Logically, there wouldn't need to be a need to bribe officials if one has enough tunnels.

You're the one claiming that's how the drugs get in....not me.

Again, did he say it was okay or that he supported their right to commit genocide? He simply explained why it happens.

You understand that genocide isn't actually a cultural norm in China so he's clearly excusing it.

Yes Trump not only doesn't condemn what he does, he literally praises him.

He praises human rights abuses?

No, but he says things like "I think, mutually, we’ve done very well with respect to North Korea.”

And?

Does he mean that both he and the dictator of North Korea have made money off the labor in work camps where people live more off of the rats that infest the place than the actual meals they receive?

A sane interpretation of that statement would probably be one that realizes he's speaking about his attempts to open dialogue with N Korea.

I don't think Trump owns a labor camp in N Korea lol.

He defunded the war but Biden actually removed the troops

Read the article I linked, the withdrawal began under Trump, after he negotiated it. That's a fact....even if you refuse to acknowledge that.

Can you cite a Statement of Purpose by the original organizers that states that their goal is to vandalize property and loot?

No.

There were and are individuals who use the protests as a vehicle to commit crimes, however, it is not a criminal organization.

I said it was a scam.

Similarly with the KKK or Skinhead movement. There may be knuckleheads who get drunk with their friends and jump a mixed couple or gay bash someone but that does not make the racist organizations in and of themselves criminal organizations.

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

Excepting of course those judges and police officers who target minorities and even that is an individual crime. They have nothing on their official media that says they support committing crimes.

The scam was the name "Black Lives Matter" and protests around dead black people gave the appearance that this group was in some way interested in helping black people....so they supported it, and donated money.


That's the scam. The only black people they helped were themselves.

I believe it has come out that his team organized the leaders of the hate groups who led the insurrection.

Link?

“WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side,”

The Dark Side is the order of the Sith who used the "force" for evil and selfish purposes.

Ok then I guess Trump did the right thing by encouraging the Electoral College to ignore the popular because of what he "thought." A tried and true leader of a democratic republic would respect the citizen's wishes.

Is that what it looks like to you?

Of course but the election goes on for one day, not 3 months.

I think you're forgetting early voting.

He had months to prove he was cheated and never could so.......Step aside.

He did.

By you being what I assume is a freedom-loving American, (correct me if I'm wrong). I have a hard time understanding why you would think it is okay to reject the results of a free election. Will you elaborate on how that is possible?

If you believe that you were cheated...you certainly should have every avenue possible to explore that possibility.

Unfortunately, with so many possibilities to explore it can take awhile.

All a dictator really needs is the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What?

Reference any dictator who has usurped the elected power.

Saddam Hussain.

Often a General in their own right who leads the strongest branch of the country's military.

Head of the "secret police" essentially.

Regardless....you just defeated your own argument. Trump has never been in the military, let alone reached the ranks of general.

"War is Hell." Does Russia do any worse with the flattening of whole sections of cities?

No. Are you excusing Russian war crimes?

Should I now consider this praise of foreign dictators?

IMO It's not so much the weapon one touts, it's more about the target (except chemical and biological warfare)

Ok.

Cluster bombs are just another way to kill people.

Right...but they're considered a war crime because of how often they kill civilians long after the end of the war.

Where were the war crimes charges when our military blew two entire cities off the map? The winners make the rules. Ask Saddam.

Then I'm not certain what your concern is if you believe the winners make the rules. We have a war criminal who excused genocide in office now and you don't seem concerned about it at all.

Actually, by Ukraine being a member of NATO was were (are) obligated to help. The same as the UK, France, and the other 30 members of NATO. It's how we prevent dictators from winning world wars. It can even stop a dictator from winning a continent.

Well it would be nice if those other NATO allies picked up the slack on these conflicts.

Also, when did the Ukraine join NATO?

 

[RDKirk]

2 realistic scenarios which I could envision as possibilities...

1. The president turns his focus on reorganization and restructuring law enforcement agencies with the goal of either getting enough dirt on legislators (or framing them) and justices that they must do as he says or they go to jail.

2. The President completely replaces entire agencies with people loyal only to himself, then ignores any laws passed by veto or unenforcement and likewise ignores any SCOTUS rulings he disagrees we, essentially taking advantage of the inability of the other two branches to execute the law.

If Congress does not stand up as a separate branch of government and does not pass veto-proof legislation against those moves, then the military has to accept them as legal. If Congress does not take the President to the Supreme Court, then the military has to accept those moves as legal.

The military needs the other Branches to stand up. I've seen it happen when presidents intend something questionable and certain people in uniform scurry over to the Capitol to get a reading on what Congress will do.

 

[RDKirk]

I live in a reasonable country, a pragmatic one. Free, democratic, pragmatic and practical. Luckily we don't have 24x7 news channels, although Rupert Mudooch gives people Fox News with some common Sky tv bundles.
I guess most first world democratic "western" nations like ours are pretty similar, but USA is a different beast altogether.
Like most people in my country I'm not overly political, I'm pragmatic and not idealogical.
I've voted for both the major parties (the right one, the left one), I don't think there is much difference between them.
I like the idea that when the country starts going too far left we typically vote in the Right party and when the country is going too far right we typically vote in the Left party.
I have no issues with people that are leaning right or leaning left.
We don't have massive political rallies, I would never buy political merchandise and I've never been to a political event.
We don't have wedge issues. No party campaigns on abortion, or guns, or anti-woke (well NZ First did a little of anti-woke in their campaign ad but it seemed like he was trying to bring some USA nonsense over here, his part got very little of the NZ vote). But NZ elections are about policies, not fear mongering, not smear campaigns, not wedge issues.

Looking at USA, looking at USA media, I'd have to say the Democrat party seem normal. The Republican party seem crazy, wacky and extreme.
I really don't hear much about the Democrat party that is alarming.
They aren't trying to control thoughts. In fact they are socially liberal, which means they value diversity which means they are all for people of different cultures, different religious beliefs, they are not trying to make a society of homogenous people.

I know that the USA right wing spin try to make out the the left are Marxists and Socialists, but they most certainly are not.
The left do want a single payer health system. But that doesn't make them Socialists nor anti capitalism.
single payer health systems is what most of the 1st world democratic countries have, and it works and our health is affordable and noone misses out. It is certainly nothing to be scared of.
With regards to abortion, the Democrats want to put choice into the people's hands, they aren't forcing anyone to do anything. They are allowing the people to make their own decisions rather than the government to make it for them.
With regards to transgender, LGQBT the Democrats are also allowing the people to make their own decisions, not wanting to force anything on anyone.

From your post that I commented on you said
"or that person faces coerced re-education."
I can only presume you are referring to that time that Hilary Clinton said something about "the MAGA extreme needing to be deprogrammed".
As far as I understood it, she wasn't making a campaign promise, she wasn't proposing govt intervention. She was just making an off the cuff comment about the Cult like behaviour of some of Trump's most extreme loyalists.

In the intel business, we would say that you lack "ground truth."

 

[stevil]

In the intel business, we would say that you lack "ground truth."

I would have thought the intel business is about clarity rather then vagueness.

Do you think I'm to understand what your post means?

 

[stevil]

In the intel business, we would say that you lack "ground truth."

I really do think a lot of USA folk could have their eyes opened by going abroad for a bit.
I feel USA is a really strange bubble with a lot of fear and paranoia and a massive feedback loop where fear and confirmation bias is really making people think too much, making people "see" things that aren't there.
Trump says something, then Foxnews says it, then Brietbart then AON, then your neighbor says it, then all the talk back radios are saying it, and so you all feel it has to be true. They are all speaking in half truths, some of it is true and added to that is all this extra hyperbolic stuff. You then hear from your schools or see stuff in movies, you see for your selfs the half that is true, and then you assume the other half of the narrative must be true also.

But if you have a chance to get out of the USA bubble. I really, really believe your perspective will change. The fear will disappear, the paranoia will go, and you'll finally be able to see things with cool heads. Untill you have cool heads, how are you possibly able to tell truth from hyperbole?

Here is a video log from a USA lady that has migrated to NZ and been living here for 8 years.
She has talked about how living in NZ has changed her as a person. I have no idea if she is liberal or conservative.
A USA person listening to her, might get angry and defensive, or they might take on board her personal experience from being in the USA bubble, to being outside it, to being an outsider looking in. This is just one lady's opinion.


1. She's not as aggressive. (she's become more chill, learned to not worry about the small stuff)
2. She's become less demanding, less prissy (doesn't call out for wait staff)
3. She's less rambunctious, more self aware (not so loud, not so much of Its all about ME and my demands!)
4. less patience for crowds (prefers a beach with not many people on it)
5. Learned to relax (pretty much repeat of item 1) talks about valuing work/life balance, need for holidays etc.
6. Hates to tip (doesn't need the tension between customer and server)
7. appreciation for decent healthcare for everyone.
8. She is more aware how how politics has infiltrated everything in the US can see that in NZ poitics isn't part of everyday life. (11:46 into the clip)
9. Advertising rules. She now likes some of the regulation around advertising in NZ. She talks about fear mongering and suing culture in USA. Says USA needs to have adult conversations rather than diving into fear to sell things.
10. The US does not have it all figured out. Fear and misunderstanding, no trust for leadership,

I would say that it isn't NZ that is special, this lady would probably have changed in all the same ways if she moved to England, Australia, Canada, Spain, Itally, Scotland, Ireland etc. It's just getting out of that USA bubble.

 

[RDKirk]

I really do think a lot of USA folk could have their eyes opened by going abroad for a bit.

I've spent 13 years in the Far East, and I still find lots of room to disagree with you.

Nor does your deflection about the insularity of Americans a response about you not having ground truth about the social situation in the US.

 

[stevil]

I've spent 13 years in the Far East, and I still find lots of room to disagree with you.

Nor does your deflection about the insularity of Americans a response about you not having ground truth about the social situation in the US.

Just saying, that different perspectives are useful and that an inside view isn't always one that is in touch with reality.

 

[Bradskii]

I've spent 13 years in the Far East, and I still find lots of room to disagree with you.

Nor does your deflection about the insularity of Americans a response about you not having ground truth about the social situation in the US.

I think that @stevil has a very good point. This 'ground truth' I guess is what you mean by an honest experience of exactly what is happening in your own backyard. But the problem is that everyone's interpretation of that experience is different. And most people seem only have an attitude that says 'My party good, their party bad'. To the point where they need to know who said what before they'll agree to it. They need to know who has proposed a policy before they can back it. You're either wearing a white hat...or a black one. There's no subtlely, no nuance.

 

[stevil]

I've spent 13 years in the Far East, and I still find lots of room to disagree with you..

I was talking about free, democratic and western culture nations other than USA. Asia is a whole nother ballgame.

 

[Bradskii]

I was talking about free, democratic and western culture nations other than USA. Asia is a whole nother ballgame.

I think the ideal countries one should use as a comparison would be similar ones such as the US, Canada, NZ and Australia. A common language, fairly new, lots of immigrants, all democracies.

If something here (in Oz) is not working out then it's reasonable to look at one of the other three where it is working, figure out how they solved the problem and see if the solution is applicable. Immigration, health, original inhabitants, crime, education, politics, employment...we can all learn from each other.

 

[rturner76]

The PATRIOT Act has been taken to court several times.

Why the Patriot Act’s expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
• Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
• Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

This is just one excerpt from a much larger document by the ACLU outlining the ways in which The Patriot Act violates multiple Amendments to the Constitution. In short, privacy, free speech, and due process were shredded by this act. While I respect a judge's authority to produce a verdict based on their interpretation of the Constitution, I also believe that they not only make mistakes but are vulnerable to political pressure.

Surveillance Under the USA/PATRIOT Act | American Civil Liberties Union

What is the "USA/Patriot" Act? Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks...

www.aclu.org

 

[RDKirk]

Why the Patriot Act’s expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
• Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
• Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

This is just one excerpt from a much larger document by the ACLU outlining the ways in which The Patriot Act violates multiple Amendments to the Constitution. In short, privacy, free speech, and due process were shredded by this act. While I respect a judge's authority to produce a verdict based on their interpretation of the Constitution, I also believe that they not only make mistakes but are vulnerable to political pressure.

Surveillance Under the USA/PATRIOT Act | American Civil Liberties Union

What is the "USA/Patriot" Act? Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks...

www.aclu.org

Did the Supreme Court agree?

 

[rturner76]

There's multiple circumstances under which your 4th amendment rights are diminished or gone entirely. You only seem concerned about this one though.

I don't know about all of the other ways the Feds are allowed to violate our rights but I do know about the Patriot Act.

Wow....we haven't gone to war since WW2?

Correct, we have had police action, and peacekeeping missions the term "War on Terror" was coined in the same way the "The War on Drugs" was coined. However in order to declare war on a sovereign nation, there must be a vote and approval by Congress.

Look...I told you how terrorists are designated in my understanding.

How can a government declar war on an unknown country? As I said, an actual war against a sovereign nation needs an act from Congress. Our "War on Terror" has been the catchword to explain all of the ways our government illegally detains and holds prisoners without trial.

Look...I told you how terrorists are designated in my understanding

Again, how can "war" be declared on a concept? It must be declared on a country's standing government.

Could you rewrite that last sentence?

Apologies for that. I don't know what happened there. Basically, I was reiterating that justice should not be based on your ability to hire the most expensive lawyer. It should be equally dispensed to both rich and poor

.I've never seen that. I've seen statistics showing that any lawyer is better than none, and expensive lawyers are better than cheap or free ones...but never saw anything that directly said "make x money, get y result"

How about "make X money, get a better lawyer?" Have you seen that? I tend to believe more in the equal dispensation of justice, instead of justice if one can afford it. It's just too bad our justice system was built based on the class system so our country will likely never have equal dispensation of justice.

Ok...can you provide a source?

Top facts - Reprieve

Since 2002, Guantanamo Bay has held a total of 780 prisoners. In this time it has become a global symbol of injustice: a place which stands for torture, abuse, and indefinite detention. Over the last 17 years, the Government has attempted to suppress the truth about Guantanamo. In response, we...

reprieve.org

The statement that genocide is a cultural norm in China can either be seen as an excuse or dismissal....it's not a valid explanation, because genocide isn't a cultural norm in China.

Genocide, Extermination and Mass Killing in Chinese History (Chapter 14) - The Cambridge World History of Genocide

The Cambridge World History of Genocide - May 2023

www.cambridge.org

That's missing quite a lot of context.

It's one of the statements that set the insurrection in motion.

Well in some cases... yeah. They appeared to have cooperated with the media to ruin the reputation of doctors who voiced disagreement over the official covid narrative.

Ruining a reputation on social media is the equivalent of the government instructing a hospital to fire a doctor. Even if it's something unrelated to them treating a patient. Especially if they said something crazy like "gays shouldn't be parents" or some other discriminatory remark especially if they are in a position to act on their bigotry. I don't know if that's the case here but I can see how an unrelated subject can cost someone their job. Another example would be if an employee posts anything contrary to their mission statement or disciplinary policy.

Including seeking the punishment of people who disagree with them politically?

A person may call for anyone's job based on the dislike of their opinion. It's up to the employer to ensure they dismiss someone for a legal reason. I can see why a company would not want to employ and avowed Fascist or racist.

Actually, I'm not certain how that works.

I would assume that a racist owner of a social media platform can delete someone's anti-racist posts and allow calls for a gay person to lose their job. It just isn't as popular of an opinion. A racist employer may keep another racit employed as long as they don't make their company liable for treating people based on their color.

I'm not concerned about people getting "kicked off platforms"....I'm concerned about them losing their jobs.

Very compassionate but if someone offends their employer, without a contract, they can be fired.

I have no problem with anyone attacking an idea. I have a problem with people seeking to get people fired from their jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with their jobs.

As long as the government isn't instructing the employer to can someone because they have an unpopular opinion, it's a free market.

I used him as an example....I'm not really concerned about him though. I'm concerned about people who don't have millions to retire on tomorrow

I don't feel sorry for someone who posts a racist diatribe on social media when they lose their job.

I don't think we've had this degree of illegal child labor since the 1930s. It's a lot

Citation? Also, if it's an illegal activity, I assume statics can mostly be collected by counting the number of people who get caught.

And those employers pay for the President's campaign. Biden doesn't spend his money getting elected....but Trump does....and now you know why they don't want him winning.

Trump gets plenty of donations through PACs

Yeah? I've never heard of more than a handful of examples and they don't end well. Ripping off cartels is practically a death sentence.

I just deleted the next part since you provided no evidence of your claims of crooked customs officers. I'm not interested in your fanfiction.

Again, the only statistics on crooked customs agents would be of those who have been caught. Do they all get caught? My feeling is only a small number do. Do you really believe that the cartels don't pay off government officials on both sides of the border or make threats and intimidate people who work for the government?

Why? People can get over your yard fence. They can even tunnel under it

Fair point. I'm making the same point about a border fence. Tunnel under, drone products over. They even have tunnels with tracks in them to hustle over tons of goods and services in minutes. When one is shut down, another opens up.

Building the wall is a step in fixing that.

It's more like a step toward sending things/people underground more and more.

You're the one claiming that's how the drugs get in....not me

I'm sure you know that dugs get in more than one way.

You understand that genocide isn't actually a cultural norm in China so he's clearly excusing it.

A sane interpretation of that statement would probably be one that realizes he's speaking about his attempts to open dialogue with N Korea.

I don't think Trump owns a labor camp in N Korea lol.

Is that what he said or did he say "they" were doing great things in N Korea? Does that statement say "I have opened dialog" or "great things?" Slave labor is not a "great thing" IMO but there are still many who would love slavery to come back to the south.

Read the article I linked, the withdrawal began under Trump, after he negotiated it. That's a fact....even if you refuse to acknowledge that.

I believe that he allowed the Taliban to take full control of the country, defunded the military, and pulled out just enough Marines so they couldn't protect themselves. Then people went crazy when Biden actually moved the troops out of the country. Everything fell apart on Trumo, he conceded the battle to the enemy and Biden had to swoop in and clean up his mess.

He praises human rights abuses?

He praises human rights abuser

The Dark Side is the order of the Sith who used the "force" for evil and selfish purposes.

It is also anyone who doesn't follow Trump's instructions, even if he is instructing them to defraud voting American citizens in all of the states where he lost.

I think you're forgetting early voting.

The voting ends on one particular day and they are all counted a couple of days later. Then he tried to backtrack for 3 months and didn't win one single court case making himself look like a sore loser who wanted to cheat the American public out of a free election.

He did.

Once he was forced to and the attempted coup didn't work.

If you believe that you were cheated...you certainly should have every avenue possible to explore that possibility.

Unfortunately, with so many possibilities to explore it can take awhile.

He did and got shut down on every avenue. Then cried about it all year and encouraged a culture of defrauding the government

Head of the "secret police" essentially.

Regardless....you just defeated your own argument. Trump has never been in the military, let alone reached the ranks of general.

As the commander in chief he controls the military or you could say it like the military is loyal to his seat. If he were able to get the joint chiefs of staff to follow his coup, he would be El Presidente Trump the dictator.

Right...but they're considered a war crime because of how often they kill civilians long after the end of the war.

Sort of like every other unexploded bomb or mine in the known world?

Then I'm not certain what your concern is if you believe the winners make the rules. We have a war criminal who excused genocide in office now and you don't seem concerned about it at all.

He won the election, he's in. Did he actually say he approves of genocide or did he state a fact?

Well it would be nice if those other NATO allies picked up the slack on these conflicts.

Also, when did the Ukraine join NATO?

Their application was approved. They still have to cut through some red tape but they have the support of NATO. I'm going off what I read here:

"First, we shortened your path to NATO from two to one step by removing the requirement for a Membership Action Plan," he said. “Second, we agreed a programme to make Ukraine’s forces fully interoperable with your future Allies,” he added. “Third, we strengthened our political ties to an unprecedented level, by establishing the NATO-Ukraine Council – a body where we can consult and take decisions together.” The Secretary General stressed: “these three decisions mean that Ukraine is now closer to NATO than ever before.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_218847.htm#:~:text=Mr%20Stoltenberg%20welcomed%20that%20all,Action%20Plan%2C%22%20he%20said.

 

[rturner76]

Did the Supreme Court agree?

The Supreme Court seems to be loaded with Fascists currently. Who knows what their majority is capable of?

 

[RDKirk]

The Supreme Court seems to be loaded with Fascists currently. Who knows what their majority is capable of?

Well, Congress passed the law and continues to maintain it. Multiple presidents have willingly enforced it. The Supreme Court has not overturned it.

They're certainly not fascists (I've already talked about that), but apparently you think they're all, and have been for two decades, totalitarians.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Correct, we have had police action, and peacekeeping missions the term "War on Terror" was coined in the same way the "The War on Drugs" was coined.

Well I'm sure we took prisoners during all those "actions" and "missions".

I'll let you figure out how that was legal, since we didn't declare war, and then you can go ahead and apply it to the terrorists.

Again, how can "war" be declared on a concept? It must be declared on a country's standing government.

Who cares? They took military prisoners without declaring war in Vietnam. There's your answer. Go figure out what law they passed to allow that....then apply it to the terrorists.

Apologies for that. I don't know what happened there. Basically, I was reiterating that justice should not be based on your ability to hire the most expensive lawyer. It should be equally dispensed to both rich and poor

Sure. I don't disagree....but I also don't much see the point in worrying about what I can't change.

How about "make X money, get a better lawyer?" Have you seen that? I tend to believe more in the equal dispensation of justice, instead of justice if one can afford it. It's just too bad our justice system was built based on the class system so our country will likely never have equal dispensation of justice.

Actually our justice system is built around the idea that people are presumed innocent, have rights, and are entitled to defense.

The fact that a good lawyer costs more money is basic economics. Lots of criminals....few good lawyers. They can charge whatever they like...and they do.

Your anger is misplaced at the justice system when you should be angry that lawyers who, just like you, me, and everyone else, want money.

Top facts - Reprieve

Since 2002, Guantanamo Bay has held a total of 780 prisoners. In this time it has become a global symbol of injustice: a place which stands for torture, abuse, and indefinite detention. Over the last 17 years, the Government has attempted to suppress the truth about Guantanamo. In response, we...

reprieve.org

From the link...

We advocate for policy change to bring about an end to the death penalty, torture, unlawful detention, and unlawful lethal drone strikes.

As a total war advocate...I disagree with everything they stand for.

Genocide, Extermination and Mass Killing in Chinese History (Chapter 14) - The Cambridge World History of Genocide

The Cambridge World History of Genocide - May 2023

www.cambridge.org

An encyclopedia entry?

What's that supposed to prove?

It's one of the statements that set the insurrection in motion.

Sure sure...the "insurrection". Got any context for the quote?

Ruining a reputation on social media is the equivalent of the government instructing a hospital to fire a doctor.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Even if it's something unrelated to them treating a patient. Especially if they said something crazy like "gays shouldn't be parents" or some other discriminatory remark especially if they are in a position to act on their bigotry. I don't know if that's the case here but I can see how an unrelated subject can cost someone their job.

I was referring to government censorship of experts regarding covid but hey...you just make up whatever you want and I'll ignore it and move on.

A person may call for anyone's job based on the dislike of their opinion.

A person can punch another person in the face... it doesn't mean they should.

Why would anyone want to get someone fired from their jobs over their political beliefs?

It's up to the employer to ensure they dismiss someone for a legal reason. I can see why a company would not want to employ and avowed Fascist or racist.

It would be fun to imagine people who got canceled are all avowed "fascists and racists" but for the most part....they simply disagreed with the cancel mob.

I would assume that a racist owner of a social media platform can delete someone's anti-racist posts and allow calls for a gay person to lose their job.

Sure sure...perhaps they're one of those doctors you previously imagined.

It just isn't as popular of an opinion. A racist employer may keep another racit employed as long as they don't make their company liable for treating people based on their color.

Wait...are you saying companies shouldn't treat people differently based on race or color?

Also, in case you missed it, there's no such thing as "anti-racist". The guy who coined the term, and got handed a bunch of money, and had a university give him control of an anti-racist department that had all these research grants handed to him....is a fraud. Like BLM, he took the money, took the acclaim....but couldn't deliver.

And the lesson here kids....in case any youngsters are reading, is have an exit strategy. Always have an exit strategy. Don't be like Mr Kendi, getting phone calls every day demanding grant money back because you have no idea how to do research, let alone what to research. You want to be in a multimillion dollar mansion by then, in another nation, that won't extradite.

Very compassionate but if someone offends their employer, without a contract, they can be fired.

They can typically be fired with a contract.

As long as the government isn't instructing the employer to can someone because they have an unpopular opinion, it's a free market.

Well I have some bad news then.

I don't feel sorry for someone who posts a racist diatribe on social media when they lose their job.

Well let's be fair...when people change the definitions of words every day, it's hard to keep up lol.

Citation? Also, if it's an illegal activity, I assume statics can mostly be collected by counting the number of people who get caught.

Uh...unfortunately I've maxed out my NYT articles for the month but maybe I can find it elsewhere.

Trump gets plenty of donations through PACs

Uh huh. He put up his own money too though.

Again, the only statistics on crooked customs agents would be of those who have been caught. Do they all get caught? My feeling is only a small number do.

Well, sadly I recall some of your other feelings on crime stats and unfortunately, from a historical perspective, your feelings don't match up with reality often.

Fair point. I'm making the same point about a border fence. Tunnel under, drone products over. They even have tunnels with tracks in them to hustle over tons of goods and services in minutes. When one is shut down, another opens up.

I never claimed it was the be all end all. It just seems silly that people were complaining about the cost of a border wall and it's a mere fraction of what the illegals are now costing NYC alone.

Is that what he said or did he say "they" were doing great things in N Korea?

I don't know....like your other quote, there's no context.

What I do know is that you don't have any evidence Trump owns a labor camp in N Korea so let's move on.

I believe that he allowed the Taliban to take full control of the country,

Well that was a given. It was a mess from the start and it was run extremely poorly. Trump put an end to it, and if you don't want shot on the way out....you gotta deal with the guys taking over.

defunded the military, and pulled out just enough Marines so they couldn't protect themselves.

I see.

Then people went crazy when Biden actually moved the troops out of the country. Everything fell apart on Trumo, he conceded the battle to the enemy and Biden had to swoop in and clean up his mess.

Well...that's a lot like your story about the doctors and customs agents. It's entirely made up.

What's that like? I've never considered just coming up with my own facts that contradict reality and then pretending that is the world I'm living in. Is it disappointing? Frustrating to have to explain this stuff to people who sort through articles and evidence and all that stuff you aren't wasting any time with lol? Or is it a lot of fun?

I used to make stuff up whenever someone met me in person and asked me some dumb question like "tell me something interesting about you?"

I would throw out a "fact" that was so ridiculous...anyone who believed it just looked stupid. I once told a room full coworkers that I once spent 2 years in an amatuer Mongolian sumo circuit. When this airheaded secretary who I've never met (I only worked closely with maybe 3 people in the room) asked "As a sumo wrestler?" My response was "Oh no...I did the little complicated haircuts and wrapped the giant diapers." At that point, because I had done this straight faced and the poor woman was confused, this guy I worked closely with for awhile is turning red because he's trying so hard to not laugh. I threw in "I know you're not stupid and you probably know they're called mawashi...not giant diapers...but I didn't want anyone else confused or embarrassed because they don't know all the insider lingo." I'm sure someone told her eventually that none of that happened...but it's still a fun way to start a training day.

He praises human rights abuser


It is also anyone who doesn't follow Trump's instructions, even if he is instructing them to defraud voting American citizens in all of the states where he lost.


The voting ends on one particular day and they are all counted a couple of days later. Then he tried to backtrack for 3 months and didn't win one single court case making himself look like a sore loser who wanted to cheat the American public out of a free election.

Once he was forced to and the attempted coup didn't work.

He did and got shut down on every avenue. Then cried about it all year and encouraged a culture of defrauding the government


As the commander in chief he controls the military or you could say it like the military is loyal to his seat. If he were able to get the joint chiefs of staff to follow his coup, he would be El Presidente Trump the dictator.

Sort of like every other unexploded bomb or mine in the known world?

He won the election, he's in. Did he actually say he approves of genocide or did he state a fact?

Their application was approved. They still have to cut through some red tape but they have the support of NATO. I'm going off what I read here:

"First, we shortened your path to NATO from two to one step by removing the requirement for a Membership Action Plan," he said. “Second, we agreed a programme to make Ukraine’s forces fully interoperable with your future Allies,” he added. “Third, we strengthened our political ties to an unprecedented level, by establishing the NATO-Ukraine Council – a body where we can consult and take decisions together.” The Secretary General stressed: “these three decisions mean that Ukraine is now closer to NATO than ever before.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_218847.htm#:~:text=Mr%20Stoltenberg%20welcomed%20that%20all,Action%20Plan%2C%22%20he%20said.

Anyway, here's a story this post isn't thematically linked to....it just popped into my head and I wanted to share it. It's an actual conversation I had with a poster on here.

I had made a thread, like many for about a year prior to this thread, about the content of certain children's books in school and public libraries across the country. I had, after my very first post...decided to try and look up what the actual content was for myself instead of relying on these news organizations that seemed to either be exaggerating or disagreeing about the content of the books. No source better than the books themselves, right? So for almost a year...I knew which posters had actually looked up what was in the books and who didn't. It turned out, that nearly everyone didn't....on both sides of the political aisle. The people arguing against the books though...were correct. They may have had bad reasons for keeping the books out of classrooms and the hands of children, but that didn't mean that they were wrong to do so. In fact, once the content of these books was made public and the evening News couldn't even show it....it was clear to everyone who was correct and who was wrong. The arguments where people defended these books dried up fast. I had made the thread to give anyone who was wrong a chance to acknowledge it...or explain why they were so wrong...or even make a new argument that had some validity. One poster, who typically talks down to me, admitted his mistake and actually made a pretty valid point about other books that were getting removed alongside the smut....and since he had the integrity to admit his mistake, I didn't really argue the point he made. I agreed with it...almost entirely....because I thought it was a good point and I was impressed by his admission and integrity.

However, there was one other poster...and his posts argued what everyone else had for the year prior. He argued that the content of the books wasn't smut and the only reason why people wanted the books removed was because they were bigots. I referred him to the OP where I thought the facts were glaringly obvious and he must have skipped reading it before posting....yet he persisted. He kept claiming that everyone was lying about what was in the books. I told him I had personally looked up what was in the books...and explained how he could do the same. He seemed to ignore this....and continue claiming that I was wrong. I couldn't exactly understand why this was being posted. He was one of only a few who posted in the thread...and he was the only one still disputing the facts. I thought perhaps he was trying to make a joke of some kind...maybe he was trolling me...but I don't want to assume anything, so I just asked if he had seen what was in the books for himself. I had to stonewall him, because he avoided answering for a few posts...but I just kept asking and refused to allow the conversation to continue until he answered. He finally admitted that no....he hadn't seen what was in the books. I asked if he was going to look and find out what's in them...he made it clear he had no intention of doing so.

At that point...I was baffled. What was going on? Did he think I was bluffing and like him...I also had no idea what was in the books? That didn't make sense...because it's too easy to call that bluff. Did he think I was lying about what was in the books? If so...why not take a look and prove it? I couldn't make sense of his argument. I had to explain to him that there was no point in us continuing the discussion....because I had seen what was in the books myself, and as someone who hadn't looked, there was no possible argument he could make that would convince me that I was somehow, almost magically wrong. What made me feel pity was...he didn't understand this until I explained it again like 2 more times. It was literally as if he didn't know that one of us had actually seen the evidence...and it wasn't disputable. After rewording this basic logical point a couple of times...he finally seemed to at least understand that we weren't going to argue about what was in the books....and quietly stopped posting in the thread. I honestly can't recall ever having a conversation on here quite like it.

Funny story, right?

Anyway, sorry if that story derailed the thread for a moment, but I've never shared it with anyone, I'm not here to embarrass anyone or make them feel bad. I just wanted to get that off my chest, because I still kind of pity the guy.

How was your Thanksgiving? Got plans for Christmas?