Ser Scot A Ellison

15 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Maybe stop putting words in my mouth.

It is now too late this election cycle, but it didn't have to be, whether the mechanism was within or without the Democratic Party.

I’ve been saying that we need to reform the US Government for a very long time.  I simply do not understand how declaring “fascism has already won” is in any way helpful or is anything but defeatist whining?

2 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

No; I want people to recognize that the "lesser evil" fully enabled and thereby gave us the fascism. Maybe it's time to stop giving them a pass and to start effecting change.

So… don’t vote for Biden in the 2024 Presidential Election… fully recognizing who is the direct beneficiary of such an action?

2 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

it means that fascism has already won. It's just a matter of time.

So… you want people to give up?  Really?

They’re making KJA’s fanfiction into a TV series… aren’t they?

https://screenrant.com/dune-prophecy-tv-spinoff-story-cast/

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Yes, I thought that at the time.

The problem is, when you see people in long robes and headscarves, all genuflecting and saying “Messiah”, “Lisan Al Gaib”, “Mahdi”, etc., it’s hard not to think of The Life of Brian.

All we needed was someone angrily saying “What have the Harkonnens ever done for us?”

“He’s not the messiah!! He’s a very naughty boy!!!”

29 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I suppose it depends on how congress approved it. Are there methods of approving things like aid other than passing bills? A bill can be vetoed, but I have no idea whether there are other mechanisms that wouldn’t be subjected to a presidential veto.

You are missing my distinction.  If the aid is proposed as a bill the President can Veto.  I’m asking about ongoing aid after the bill has been adopted the Congress (both the House and Senate) and signed by the President… does any President (given Trump’s impeachment for unilaterally withholding such aid) ever have the authority to unilaterally withhold previously approved aid?

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Gotcha. Wouldn’t it work differently depending on how the congress approved it? Like, if it’s a bill the president can veto it, right? And then congress can override the veto? But I have no idea if something like this, approved aid, would be passed on a bill or by some other mechanism?

Veto… absolutely.  My question is about after passage and signing.  Would any President, given the rationale for Trump’s impeachment, have authority to unilaterally threaten to withhold or withdraw ongoing aid after it has been legally authorized?

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

 

Yeah, that’s what I meant and failed to express properly. He threatened to withhold stuff that had gone through congress already if Zelensky didn’t say they were looking into Biden regardless of whether there was an actual investigation or not. And then he was impeached for abuse of power and… I wanna say some type of obstruction charge? That’s what I remember, but hey, I barely remember what I had for breakfast today, so take it with a bucket of salt! 

My point is this… if Trump was impeached for seeking to withhold aid that had previously been authorized by Congress… does a President… any President… have individual discretion or authority to unilaterally withhold aid once that aid has legally been authorized?

25 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Didn’t he threaten that as a way to twist Ukraine’s arm into “finding” dirt on Biden? Weren’t there 2 charges, abuse of power and something else?

Yes… but one of the keys was Trump refusing to send aid after that had been approved by Congress… wasn’t it?

I have an odd question… wasn’t Trump’s first impeachment brought for threatening to withhold Congressional authorized aid too Ukraine?

4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The US is announcing (or rather, Biiden will during SoTU) that it will build a floating pier to allow aid into Gaza. I am cynical enough to believe this is to assuage leery Democratic voters, but it should ultimately be a good thing too, yes?

Will the Israeli Navy… resist?

10 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Thanks for the link.  If you're willing to dig into it a bit, I'm curious about your thoughts on the first Lukes' article [in] the second pdf criticizing Chomsky and taking him to task for doubting the first hand reports of genocide by refugees.  Lukes argues (or at least I think that's a reasonable interpretation)that the US is responsible for turning Cambodia into a wasteland of disease and warfare.

You don't have to say, or answer any of these questions, but I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway:

You're not that much older than me, so I'm guessing you're between 50-55?  In the mid 80's were you even voting?  Curious about how you consider yourself complicit.

If you're complicit in the US's later support of the Khmer Rouge, what about the US's role in the genesis of that conflict?

This goes back to wondering about whether the actions of one random person with no power are somehow The Problem rather than the decisions made by governments to execute violence and war.  

  

I first voted in 1990… I turned 18 in 1989.  But… I’m a citizen of the US.  We are to a degree all responsible for what the Government we elect does.  That’s the nature of Representative Government.  I couldn’t vote… but boy did I cheer for the Reagan Administration when I was in grade school.  There is some responsibility there.

19 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Why don't you tell me?  What did Chomsky say that was apologia for Pol Pot and when did he say it, and when did he change his mind?

Again, I think it's pretty interesting that we're targeting the claims of people who have zero to very little actual political power, and so incredibly reticent to criticize the people who actually make decisions.  

Here you go.  Offer a defense for regimes engaging in genocide (as the Khmer Rouge were) still seems problematic to me.  Now… I’m happy to condemn the US’s support for the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s after the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to stop the genocide.  I… as a citizen of the US… own some responsibility for the US’s actions in supporting the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s.

https://libcom.org/article/chomsky-and-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia

6 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Sure, i just think your questions are leading and not in good faith. Time and time again you do this and to tell you the truh im a little tiered of it. Like with the chomsky thing, as larry told you, chomski questioned and then came to the conclution that it was in fact a genocide. And i for sure dont think that whatever conclusion chomsky  (or anyone else)got to, has something to do with anti colonialist thought going into some kind of dark path or some such nonsense

Okay.  

18 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

As more information came out from other sources he walked that back.  
 

I think given the US's track record his initial skepticism was well warranted.  

Didn’t he wait years to do that?

14 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Cuz im not talking about what chomsky thinks or doesnt think on any particular subject 

Why not?  It is not problematic that he defended a Genocidier?

1 minute ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Dont give a fuck. Actions taken by the usa goverment and military could and should be viewed as terrorist in nature

Indeed.  On some occasions you are correct.  Why don’t you give a fuck about Norm Chomsky defending genocide?

4 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

You might not belive it, but for many  the usa soldiers  ARE the terrorists, just ask the survivors of us drone bombings, and a long long list of simillar or worse "terrorists" attacks

Your thoughts on Norm Chomsky’s defense of Pol Pot?

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How is it a path?  How do you know that anti-colonialism is the culprit?

 

Eta: also, might be helpful to name some names.  There are plenty of artists and writers and intellectuals who had staunch anti-colonial views and managed to not do that.  

Norm Chomsky flat out defended Pol Pot.  

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

And some of us just use the word "apologia" any chance we can get. 

I like the word apologia.  It encompasses much of what people here do (myself included) in not quite endorsing particular points of view but attempting to walk back claims those views are really bad.  It is pointing out nuance… and isn’t all that bad a thing to do.

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

i don't think you have read what was written properly. 

Noting the 9/11 hijackers put their lives on the line isn’t complementing bravery and by extension… apologia?

11 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Did I say that?

Complementing their bravery isn’t apologia?

3 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

The 9/11 bombers put their lives on the line as well. Russian soldiers are putting their lives on the line right now. Surely there also has to be some assessment of what someone is putting their life on the line for?

You really want to offer apologia for the 9/11 hijackers?  I honestly feel sorry for Russian soldiers… they really have a shit deal.

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Are you actually interested in understanding a potential rationale for what he said*, or is this point scoring in an argument? I don't agree with him on that so I'm not interested in defending it, but if the goal is understanding I can take a crack.

*Was it ever confirmed those comments were definitely him?

Before I abandoned twitter several months ago I ran into far too many partisans for the non-state actor making that precise argument for me to be particularly skeptical of it.  The non-state actor is really bad news and that doesn’t excuse the excesses of the State actor.

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

[Censored for compliance with rules, assuming they still stand]

Justifying civilian deaths pretty much goes hand in hand with justifying the violent conflict of which it is a part. If someone believes the wider conflict justifies the use of violence then they will (if they are being honest) say civilian casualties are justified. So if you are prepared to say that deadly violence is a necessary action under [fill in the blanks] circumstances, then you ought to be prepared to offer apologia for killing civilians. And you can't just say it's justified by the side you support, because there are normally civilian casualties on all sides, so you have to allow that civilian deaths on the side you do support are also justified. You normally justify your own civilian deaths by saying there would be more if violent action was not taken, though that justification is only really legitimate on the part of the victim, since if the aggressor took no action presumably there's be no civilian deaths anywhere. A problem arises, of course, when everyone claims to be the victim.

The state entity not being discussed is absolutely wrong when it targets or takes actions that increase civilian casualties.  I hold the non-state actor to the same standards when it deliberately targets civilians for murder.  Claiming X has no civilians… is way the fuck beyond the pale for me.