GW Hayduke

I recommend taking a look at the media bubble that resulted in this take. It is common throughout history to blame others for the killing of civilians. In addition to the piece on the 2005 Israel supreme court ruling I provided earlier, wiki provides a good snapshot of the use of human shields throughout the conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield#Palestine The point I am making is that we know Israel has used human shields. We know the degree of civilian and children deaths are inappropriate. The current solution is to cease bombardment and civilian killing. The longterm solution is clearly two states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

You are putting too much weight on intention. Intention doesn't matter. Results do. True intentions are rarely stated. What were the stated US intentions going into Iraq? What were the stated Nazi intentions going into Poland? The current conflict has killed 192 in gaza including 58 children. It is unacceptable for Israel to kill children - even if killing children wasn't the "point." Israel's use of arabs as human shields was unacceptable even if the "point" was not to endanger arabs (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/israel). The issue is that the totality of the evidence - civil rights abuses, crimes against humanity, disproportionate civilian deaths, a system designed to propagate an ethnically clean state, a system designed to expand that ethnically clean state, the continuation of bombardment even after calls for truces - make clear that dehumanization and apartheid are being conducted by the State of Israel whether those intentions are stated or not. There have always been supporters of and reasons to support atrocious events in history. Folks rationalized slavery in the US for reasons. The south african apartheid was worth it from some people for some reasons. Hitler had his reasons to go into Poland. The US had reasons to otherthrow Sadam. The presence of reasons doesn't automatically justify actions if the actions are inappropriate. History will see the Apartheid by Israel. People see it now.

The Mormons decided to coalesce in Utah, and things are going ok for them. The Amish are doing well in Pennsylvania I think. Even the Scientology people get to do their thing here. It is hard for me to buy the idea that their religious identity and preservation hinges on Israel. Merge that idea with the depreciating value in Middle East fossil fuels and the current apartheid and crimes against humanity and it seems like a rather straight line to the US saying adios and getting the fuck out

I find it odd when folks expect GOP reps who stand up against trump and his lies should also for some reason be voting with Nancy Pelosi. Being for the constitution doesn't mean also have to be for raising taxes. Folks shouldn't conflate policy with the rule-of-law.

They could have had him any day They only let him slip away Out of kindness, I suppose

The folks at lawfare provide some insight in the conflict in their rational security podcast. https://www.lawfareblog.com/rational-security-gas-new-toilet-paper-edition

I get that. But it doesn't mean it should be like that or that we can't change the regulations around pharmaceuticals or recreational drugs. Or that we should discuss better ways to handle it. The idea that those things could impact our lives, even those from well-to-do neighborhoods or young and seemingly healthy people, should add weight to the topic.

I think government does play a role though. There is the unfortunate shadiness surrounding the FDA approval of various opioids and inappropriate (likely illegal) marketing of the opiods that led to a huge US market for fentanyl, etc. - which is at the heart of the documentary you cite. Then there is the issue of having a black market for recreational (or self-prescribed) drug use that results in unregulated production. That lack of regulation endangers lives. The black market only exists because of the stances our government has taken - we don't have a system that manages the legal use of recreational drugs.

Exactly. She represents Wyoming. Wyoming is 91% white. Wyoming is +25 republican. Her voting record aligning with the GOP isn't an issue. We are witnessing a battle within the GOP. Cheney is leading one side of that battle. That side is wanting to rid the party of Trump. That side will likely get slaughtered in the 2022 primaries. I hope not. We need less trumpists in elected office.

Who cares how Cheney votes on policy? She is a conservative. She votes for conservative policies. No one with functional cerebrum expects her to ride with Pelosi on policies. She isn't going to vote to raise taxes on the rich. She is a conservative. That isn't the issue. She voted to remove Trump after the second impeachment. She was in a leadership role at the time. It was a big deal. It is a big deal. She is currently standing up to the majority of her party. She is standing up for the constitution, rule of law, truth, and our democracy. She is facing consequences for that. We need more like Liz Cheney.

It looks like the aggie guy was arrested for assault. Hate to see it. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/plano-rally-incident-marvin-scott-ken-paxton/287-87ebdb91-6702-426c-bedf-1d6360b0fbab

I get it. But I try and be fair. There is clearly a distinction between reputable journalists at Fox, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Bret Bair, their polling operation and their opinion side of things like Tucker and Hannity. I do think overall that right-wing propaganda is a primary purpose of the entire network. Yep. Not only was this guy inconvenienced on his trip, but he was inconvenienced by those he has been groomed to identify as the others/urban/blacks/liberals. He is going to be able justify his yelling, swing at black lady, and overall childlike emotional tirade.

Plus we have an entire right-wing media ecosystem that amplifies that distraction to the GOP base. There are actors like Jack Posobiec, OAN, the opinion side of Fox News, brietbart, facebook and twitter accounts, talk radio, etc. along with the GOP politicians themselves who all propagate division in harmony. Supercharge that chorus with an acceptance of misinformation and lies along with a slowly flawed value system of the GOP base, and we get to the place we are today.

He might be able to get the point where he can answer it. But it is rather obvious IMO the purpose is to motivate the GOP base to get to the polls and to distract the GOP base from the growing wealth gap between the middle class and ultra wealthy, the growing gap between healthcare costs and wages, and the growing gap between higher education costs and wages.

Because it is a perfect wedge between the two cultures of America. One side sees a grown man yelling and acting like a child and slapping at a black woman. The GOP Trump side sees past that and sees someone they identify with, just a poor victim who let his emotions get the better of him.

Culture war, scary angry different people, and fear-based identity politics are 85% of the GOP's platform. The other 15% are tax cuts for the rich. Hopefully, folks start to understand that the 85% is just a distraction for the 15%.

Didn’t he swing at a black lady?

Again. I must be kind of slow. Can you run it by me again? You keep mentioning something about the surveillance of Congress, and I honestly don’t know what that means or how it fits into the equivocation. It seems to me that you and Capt. Both Sides are equating Trump’s DOJ’s surveillance of journalists reporting on investigations into Trump’s White House and Trump’s campaign with Obama’s DOJ’s surveillance of journalists reporting on North Korea’s nuclear test plans and a Yemeni terror plot to bomb a commercial airliner.

I’m referring to 2013 investigations into leaks surrounding North Korea’s nuclear test plans and a Yemini terrorist plot to bomb a commercial airline. I am considering those to be national security issues.

You guys area equating national security issues with investigations into the White House and trump campaign?

I must be slow. Can someone explain to me the “legit” both sides argument here?

The issue with Trump and Trumpism aren’t the policies. They don’t have policies except for tax cuts for the rich and to stop progress. The issue with Trumpism are the lies and misinformation, the fear-based identity politics and white nationalism, the disdain for the rule of law, the fascist/authoritarian tendencies, and the disregard for the constitution. Cheney wants to cut taxes on the rich, block health care reform, and all that small government jazz. Cheney isn’t someone I would vote for but she isn’t a fascist/authoritarian who would lock up her political enemies if she could. Cheney and Trump are worlds apart.

You feel the others have views, beliefs, and positions that are not legitimate. Insightful stuff. If only they were acting in good faith, everything would be gravy. Except those darn others are "basking in the possibility" to "piss the living hell out of the powerful" and make them "squirm" -- when all the good folk of the world want is to just sing a song they "truly love." The good folks are victims here. Won't someone think about the good folks? Or maybe, instead of dumbing down and delegitimizing their position as a simple exercise of misguided power, folks could at least acknowledge the others would just rather have a song that unifies the whole school and isn't one with a tainted origin story. And if you really need to think about things in terms of power, maybe instead of being concerned about the supposed "power play" by students and athletes, you should take a look at the "power play" by donors going on. I bet there are some emails somewhere you can take a look at.