Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

Regarding the Jerusalem thing. Naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel is anti-semetic. Why? It will give actual Jewish People nothing, but it will increase the violence in the region, ultimately killing more Jews. Either Trump anticipated that, which makes him anti-semetic, or he did not, which makes him an idiot.

[bloop_bleep]

Trump succeeded in pouring oil on the Israel-Palestina conflict.

After his speech recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Massive protests formed when thousands of people took to the streets in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Dozens were injured, 2 people were killed by Israeli military forces.

Around the same time that day, Palestinian terrorists fired 3 missiles at Israel from Gaza. One was intercepted by Israeli anti-missile fire, the other were aimed at the city of Sderot but failed to hit anything important. Israel responded with an airstrike on Hamas military targets. Two people were killed, and 25 injured, amongst whom, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, were also 6 children.

Good job again, Trump, Putin is yet again proud of you.

*looks at calendar*
*realizes Trump hasn't been in office for even as much as a year and has succeeded in ruining basically every possible fucking thing that could be ruined*
*wonders what Trump is going to do with the rest of his time now that what he came to do is done already*

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm going to be radical here and say that the Semites being affected, ergo the actual Israeli Jews in this case, are probably the best barometer for what should be considered anti-Semite in their own nation. They really don't need us to tell them what should offend them. Here's an opinion from the NYT. I expect most Jews are in line with this, and certainly those in Israel.

It will also give the Jewish people a sense of legitimacy that they have been chasing after for thousands of years. They probably like that. Whether we agree with the decision or not is a different story, but it's not anti-Semite against Jews.

(Though I also expect the Palestinians, who are also considered Semite, would have the opposite opinion).

[Teneb]

The whole thing could've been a lost less damaging if he has better phrasing. "West Jerusalem" instead of "Jerusalem", given that he meant west Jerusalem in his announcement anyway. No one disputes Israel's claim to West Jerusalem. It's the eastern half that's the problem.

Unless you have some sort of secret mind-reading tool, it's impossible to know if he mean West Jerusalem. I wonder if he even knows about the divide between West and East Jerusalem. Or cares.

[sluissa]

I wonder what other countries he could ruin and chaos he could instill by unilaterally declaring something about them.

"Edinburgh is now the capitol of the UK."

"Japan must now be referred to in its proper way as 'Nippon'."

"The Korean peninsula and all inhabitants are now property of the Samsung corporation."

"It's pop, not soda or coke. Soft drink is also no longer acceptable."

[hector13]

In what way is it bullshit to choose partial over total defeat?

Perhaps you can explain how supporting an alleged child molester is a partial defeat and losing one seat in government - for what will likely end up being two years unless the Democrat did an utterly stellar job - is a total defeat, as I assume is what you meant.

I imagine most people wouldn’t bat an eye at either party losing an election, but electing someone with that hanging over them will probably be remembered for a long, long time.

I mean, pizzagate was made up and that was bad for the Dems.

[Dunamisdeos]

"It's pop, not soda or coke. Soft drink is also no longer acceptable."

In 2017, sluissa started the Second American Civil War. That's why we live in this dome.

[smjjames]

@sluissa: I get how silly it sounds with the unilateral naming, but the whole thing is steeped in MidEast politics and diplomacy. The whole Jerusalem deal is such a tinderbox that it doesn't take much for anger to erupt over it and then there's the holy sites.

The WH knew that it would be the equivalent of flipping the table for MidEast diplomacy, they admitted as much. However they're banking on the unrest being short term, which I think is a mistake to assume it would be short term.

[McTraveller]

Maybe "they" are hoping that at some point it's like when you let your kids keep acting like idiots they suddenly realize how immature they are and will start to wise up and act with some maturity.

And I meant that for all things politics - everyone acts more like immature emotional adolescents than mature adults willing to make reasoned compromises - or even reasoned decisive actions when necessary.

[sluissa]

@sluissa: I get how silly it sounds with the unilateral naming, but the whole thing is steeped in MidEast politics and diplomacy. The whole Jerusalem deal is such a tinderbox that it doesn't take much for anger to erupt over it and then there's the holy sites.

The WH knew that it would be the equivalent of flipping the table for MidEast diplomacy, they admitted as much. However they're banking on the unrest being short term, which I think is a mistake to assume it would be short term.

I understand this is sort of a unique situation. And I'm not ignorant to the context. It's just strange how Trump can make a statement that has basically no meaning at all. He has no right to declare that, and nobody has any necessity to respect it, beyond the request to move the embassy none of that statement should really matter at all.

[Baffler]

In what way is it bullshit to choose partial over total defeat?

Perhaps you can explain how supporting an alleged child molester is a partial defeat and losing one seat in government - for what will likely end up being two years unless the Democrat did an utterly stellar job - is a total defeat, as I assume is what you meant.

I imagine most people wouldn’t bat an eye at either party losing an election, but electing someone with that hanging over them will probably be remembered for a long, long time.

I mean, pizzagate was made up and that was bad for the Dems.

"Alleged." There's very little proof of anything, and a lot of claims against him have in fact already fallen apart, yet they still see media outlets that they're already primed to distrust pushing out every unsubstantiated rumor as fact. Even if some was true (which you and I are not in a position to determine) the well has already been poisoned and it just ends up looking like a politically motivated hit job.

[RedKing]

In what way is it bullshit to choose partial over total defeat?

Perhaps you can explain how supporting an alleged child molester is a partial defeat and losing one seat in government - for what will likely end up being two years unless the Democrat did an utterly stellar job - is a total defeat, as I assume is what you meant.

I imagine most people wouldn’t bat an eye at either party losing an election, but electing someone with that hanging over them will probably be remembered for a long, long time.

I mean, pizzagate was made up and that was bad for the Dems.

"Alleged." There's very little proof of anything, and a lot of claims against him have in fact already fallen apart, yet they still see media outlets that they're already primed to distrust pushing out every unsubstantiated rumor as fact. Even if some was true (which you and I are not in a position to determine) the well has already been poisoned and it just ends up looking like a politically motivated hit job.

You must get your news from a very different place.

[bloop_bleep]

In what way is it bullshit to choose partial over total defeat?

Perhaps you can explain how supporting an alleged child molester is a partial defeat and losing one seat in government - for what will likely end up being two years unless the Democrat did an utterly stellar job - is a total defeat, as I assume is what you meant.

I imagine most people wouldn’t bat an eye at either party losing an election, but electing someone with that hanging over them will probably be remembered for a long, long time.

I mean, pizzagate was made up and that was bad for the Dems.

"Alleged." There's very little proof of anything, and a lot of claims against him have in fact already fallen apart, yet they still see media outlets that they're already primed to distrust pushing out every unsubstantiated rumor as fact. Even if some was true (which you and I are not in a position to determine) the well has already been poisoned and it just ends up looking like a politically motivated hit job.

You must get your news from a very different place.

Or perhaps you do. The media outlets which are reporting this are to Alabama voters as Alex Jones is to us. If Alex Jones suddenly went on a rant about how Obama is a pedophile, would you believe him?

[EnigmaticHat]

"Alleged." There's very little proof of anything, and a lot of claims against him have in fact already fallen apart, yet they still see media outlets that they're already primed to distrust pushing out every unsubstantiated rumor as fact. Even if some was true (which you and I are not in a position to determine) the well has already been poisoned and it just ends up looking like a politically motivated hit job.

I don't understand why people in this thread keep saying that.  Roy Moore gave the bare minimum legal denial towards his accusers.  Everyone knows he did it, I don't think he even gives a shit.  Republicans have dealt with similar allegations before, and they've dealt with blatant sexists and nutjobs being elected to congress before.  The reason this is such a huge deal, is because there's no wiggle room.  If the age of consent in Alabama were 18 Roy Moore could be convicted with the only evidence being sound clips from his own interviews.  Even the then 14 year old accuser, Roy Moore didn't specifically deny her allegations.

Not to pick on Baffler in specific (because if just one person were saying things like this I wouldn't be bothered) but I can't help but ask what the standard of proof is for a sexual assault or harassment allegation to be taken seriously.  Because it seems to me that some people automatically put every single allegation in the "unsubstantiated and probably fake" box.  Like, how long is it before someone says the Loius CK allegations are false?  What does it take for allegations to be more than allegations?  Cause people in this thread have said things like "any woman can accuse a man of something and he can lose his job or even go to jail" which would seem to imply that being found guilty doesn't mean the allegations should be treated as real.  Apparently now one step short of a guilty plea is also not grounds to take the allegations seriously.  Like, what, is this schrodinger's crime?  All accused are 50% guilty and 50% innocent until the crime is observed directly by a third party.

[NullForceOmega]

"Innocent until proven guilty."  This.  This is the fundamental foundation of the entire United States legal system.  It doesn't matter how corrupted it becomes, this is the mindset that we are supposed to take to EVERY allegation of wrongdoing.  And ignoring this basic principle is seriously damaging our entire legal framework.

Of course, once it IS proven, then the guilty party deserves the punishment for their crime as laid out by law and a jury of their peers.

It has less than nothing top do with the allegation being fake, it has to do with it being proven true.