I agree, the the daily media blasting of an "imminent Russian invasion" is obsessive. But if you don't like talking politics maybe you should avoid the politics central thread.

imo this has moved beyond general political banter that makes sense in the context of an architecture and design website - constructing the conversation is as important as content dumping.

I wouldn't call any of this "politics"

Big difference between talking politics and trying to have a drink of water when the only tap available seems to be an uninvited fire hose.

But Pete, there is fluoride in that tap water.

VP as in former Vice-President Biden?

“The threats by Biden&co are getting so severe“ 

Citation please (you claim multiple, so pick a couple specific threats)

Apparently my razor wit doesn't work on a dull mind. Noted for future reference.

Proto, just read the tweets by Biden or any major news outlet that posts news where the only source is US or NATO “intelligence”…come on, not going to do your homework:

American escalation: “The US defence secretary Lloyd Austin on Saturday appeared to compare Russia’s military to a snake that was uncoiling and preparing to strike Ukraine, after a massive military buildup that has stoked the biggest east-west crisis since the cold war.”

European de escalation attempt: “ Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, warned that it remained unclear whether Vladimir Putin had yet made a decision about Ukraine, tamping down Washington’s urgent warnings of an imminent invasion.”

Honestly can’t understand you all don’t (want?) to see this…midterms coming up I guess, fending off republicans is more important than preventing the loss of innocent lives.

z if you call that razor wit I hope you have a beard or a barber(!)

So, no severe threats cited, thanks for confirming…

[btw, you make the accusation, it’s up to you to support it, not the reader to go “do homework”…]

You said, ““The threats by Biden&co are getting so severe“. I haven’t seen any threats made by Biden&co, much less severe ones. So, please enlighten me as to WTF you are referring to…

To wit…the Austin quote you picked IDENTIFIES a threat; it does NOT MAKE a threat.

Your americentrism is blocking the view from the rest of the world…Biden c.s. are hammering on an invasion for weeks now, even the Ukrainians are sick and tired of hearing it as it doesn’t help them in the slightest. If you don’t understand the psychology of that, well try reading some international news, start with The Guardian or Al Jazeera, German papers except Bild are also a good place to start.

So, again…your statement “the threats Biden&co are making” is just false. They are not making threats. That has zero to do with my perspective. It isn’t an opinion.

Further, your presumption that I can’t/won’t/don’t read an international paper is also false.

That statement isn’t false, they are making threats constantly, non-stop, that you don’t identify those as threats is because it simply doesn’t touch you…

No, you are hyperbolizing facts to suit your politics. Words have meaning. There are other ways to say that the US publicly confronting Russian military posturing is raising the risk level of confrontation without making shit up about issuing threats. I’m calling out your use of language because it’s hyperbolic and intentionally deceptive. People claim to want to have “conversations” but they don’t work when the basis of discussion is based on fantasy projections.

My apologies to other readers…I’m done with this particular line of commentary.

I’m only calling out the one(s) using the hyperbolic language…it is fear mongering from safely far away USA, by a MIC administration that can’t wait to escalate a precarious situation instead of deescalates it. I’m done with this particular line of [politics].

Pointing something out is worse than doing it.

if only it was just innocently pointing fingers...the US and NATO are building up their military forces on the Eastern edge of Europe for years now.

multiple things can simultaneously be bad.

sure has gotten quiet over here lately... (also this link goes to a photo of a restoration?)

they're working on how to blame Biden/US for the current status...i'm sure talking points will be handed out soon

oh that is very weird. Sorry about the wrong link.

Try this https://www.nytimes.com/live/2...

It’s quiet because there’s no discussion possible here unfortunately. But the move by Russia was to be expected. Ukraine is/was a failed state for a very long time, long before the USSR fell apart. Back in the 90s when Ukraine was about to give up its nuclear weapons the US also called it a Yugoslavia (remember that war) waiting to happen, but with nuclear weapons…

Now that Donbass and Luhansk with majority of ethnic Russians (and many Russian citizens) have officially been recognised by the Duma, with the conflict in Donbass and Luhansk increasing as both Ukrainians and the resistance wanted to make quick advances before any negotiations, it is wise someone stepped in and forced a stalemate. The Ukrainians will not confront the Russian army directly and the Russians will not likely go into western Ukraine, that’s not where the Russian people are and they will meet strong and permanent resistance. As the Ukrainians didn’t want to federalise their country and give the eastern ethnic Russian side more autonomy, like states have in the US, they took matters into their own hands back in ‘14…

Anyone remember the Nuland tapes where US government officials are basically deciding who should run Ukraine, which nationalist (anti-Russian) puppet to install after a democratically chosen president would be kicked out of office? Biden was in on it back then as VP…it is so disgusting coming from “the leaders of the “free” world”.

This is simply Russia stepping in to end US imperialist expansion by making it impossible for countries to join NATO as they don’t control all their borders. It worked with Moldova, Georgia and now it will work with Ukraine too. If the US and NATO don’t respect their agreements with Russia and if Ukraine is unwilling to respect the Minsk agreements, this is the result…unfortunately, so yes it is exactly because of Biden/US/NATO!

Please post supporting links from RT.com. You'll find them in your browser history, no need to type it in.

This Russian Imperialism is just Russia attempting to preempt US / NATO Imperialism in order to avoid US / NATO Imperialism. Do not think about this, I am VERY SMART (!).

My gosh you don't know about the negotiations that led to the Minsk agreement? How under Bush sr. Ukraine was called to be a potential Yugoslavia (disintegrating civil war and genocide etc, remember?) but...with nuclear weapons? Or the NATO statement that their operation should not be to the detriment of the security of other states? While US/NATO have surrounded Russia and placed (nuclear) missiles there pointing at...Russia? When Khrushchev wanted to help Cuba against their aggressive neighbour to the north US almost started a nuclear war. Or the US-backed coup in 2014 that removed Ukraine's president (sounds all too familiair doesn't it, you probably call it foreign policy). Or the Nuland-Pyatt controversy? Or that it is because of NATO's ambitions with Ukraine that Russia took control of Crimea to protect their navy fleet in the Black Sea. Your lack of common knowledge on Ukraine i.a. is nothing short of embarrassing.

It's embarrassing that you both keep posting at each other.

rando, you know nothing about what I do or do not know.

I know enough to know you don’t…

i know you are but what am i.

And on that note, I am putting the little dutch boy in time out.

Thanks, SP…as the shit is now hitting the fan all over Ukraine and Putin is “trying to demilitarise their neighbour” I’m putting myself in time out as well…hope

True, but the "infrastructure" is not crumbling. It is merely being reshaped by Russia, with China's full support. It may seem more like dick-wagging, but it is actually nothing short of China and Russia writing the new world order by showing the west what they can do, while erstwhile superpowers like the US and EU look on.

The infrastructure of liberal democracy is crumbling and a competing infrastructure of autocracy/authoritarianism is swooping in to fill its place.

but if i do that i wont get any internet points

I’m in shock how the west has poked the bear and did nothing at all to back up their bluff, they instead called putin’s bluff and he is going all in. I’m in shock as this is happening right next door to my family, a war zone at their border just 300 miles away, on the doorstep of Europe. I’m in shock as I don’t see Europe, the US or NATO with any plan to stop this besides some sanctions here or there, where China will easily step in and buy Russia’s natural resources that power the European economy. They’ve been sanctionproofing their economy for years already. Sanctions that don’t mean anything to the Ukrainians. They’ve been fooled, thought they could join the EU or NATO just like that, they’ve been tricked by a coup/regime change instigated and backed by the west who then took their hands off and ran away, leaving the Ukrainians dangling to deal with the fallout that put everything at risk. I’m in shock when I see the chaos, the death and destruction of a country I have such fond memories of, a proud people that welcomed me so generously after their Orange Revolution. I’m in shock as I see the beautiful and familiar places I’ve visited getting destroyed and now don’t see where and how this will end as even radiation levels are rising coming from the exclusion zone around Chernobyl…I’m simply in shock

is this meant to be a response to my post? your narcissism (i, i, i..) is unparalleled

Random, I thought you wanted to get rid of nato?

Rando, you do understand a soverign nation has been invaded right? You do know who is the bad guy right?

It’s a personal response hence the personal perspective, has nothing to do with narcissus. But I guess you don’t understand living in a country that is always the aggressor, occupier and invader and the toppler of governments and not the one being invaded, overthrown and occupied. And we don’t need to get rid of nato, they just shouldn’t give people false hope. it’s the aggressive expansion of nato (during a time of Russian weakness after the collapse of the CCCP) that paved the way for a crook like Putin to emerge and all the wars he started and countries he invaded, not sure why people have this blind spot…and also remember it was nato/us that bombed the Serbs that redrew the map of Europe single-handedly and without UN backing in 99, they killed the Slavic orthodox brothers and sisters of the Russians and forced the establishing of Kosovo. That is pure propaganda gold for Putin to justify his stance against nato…nato kills his kind of people (even though the Ukrainians are also Slavs and orthodox, being a dictator must be difficult to twist your mind like that etc, similar to the US pretending to be a global peacekeeper I guess). The EU and Russia will come out of this weaker and damaged, that’s what the US has aimed for all along in this conflict and earlier (remember Nuland!). But I have good hopes that the people of Russia will rise up against Putin now, looking at the streets of Russian cities packed with anti-war demonstrators, I really hope that cat escaped the bag as well and that Ukraine prevails. But enough for now, back to doom scrolling all the different news outlets, The Guardian is doing a splendid job with their live feeds.

Fuck the news, doom scroll this; https://www.instagram.com/battles.and.beers/

The EU has been dragging their feet mostly cuz they need Russia's oil

Yes, the EU doesn't usually invade other sovereign countries to "get" at their oil, they pay for it, and Russia is quite close by so yeah...

Some other things to think about.

Hahaha, not the same…and you know it, I hope. You could also just watch that YouTube-video by the University of Chicago, or only listen to its audio while working, if you’d want to learn something about this conflict that is…up to you :-)

Did I say they where the same? I said there are some other things to think about. What are you thinking about?

yes rando, please use your architecture degree and educate us on global geo-political issues; i see it's helped you find and post a video that has been circulating the internet for days now. very impressive.

Same dumb conspiracy theory video

Sorry, that it doesn’t even cross your collectively brainwashed minds that the US is not the good guy…must be tiring to label everything that doesn’t fit in with your worldview a dumb conspiracy. It is because the US refuses to give in a single inch (expanding their influence so aggressively led to the Russian-Georgian war in ‘08 and the annexation of Crimea in ‘14) that Putin didn’t see any other option than the military one…(not that I agree with him, obviously) and the US doesn’t care, they will only profit from this, motherfucking warmongering imperialists in power, dem and rep, even worse than Putin. Starting illegal wars all over the world, seen Condoleeza Rice on Fox? Probably not… I’m am truly amazed that educated Americans as yourselves don’t see through this…but whatever, it is probably all propaganda and an anti-American conspiracy, right? The US is even capable of using the suffering of the Ukrainian people for US domestic political gain…

EA, this was not directed at you

The problem with being (for lack of a better word), the "Big Dog" is that you get criticized for everything. Most of us on this forum are aware that the US government is not saintly, by any means, but blaming the US for the actions of a madman is just plainly dumb. Perhaps the EU governments should also do some meaningful action rather than sit and drink their espressos, playing armchair wars, cuz they mostly have no say or resources to do anything else. But perhaps, that's not the issue. The issue is that hundreds of thousands of families and kids are being displaced, while most of the world looks the other way.

text book strawman - where specifically did i say us was the good guy? i'm well aware of the us/nato's role in much of this, but your post further proves my point that you're largely talking out of/to your ass with no particular audience in mind, repeating the same (narrow) "arguments" over and over, projecting them at the supposed flag-waving, saber-rattling americans on this site who in reality aren't talking to you. a bit nutty if you ask me.

The overlap in language and political affiliation is almost 1:1 in Ukraine (2004-2007-2010, so pre-coup, pre-annexation): 

Looks kind of like they are two different countries...

"The issue is that hundreds of thousands of families and kids are being displaced, while most of the world looks the other way."

With most of the world meaning the US...those women and children being displaced are being picked up at the border and taken in by those "horrible" regimes like Poland and Hungary among others, private people from all over the bordering countries (minus Belarus obviously) are driving to the border to pick up people and provide them shelter and a home, including their pets.

Rando - weren't you the one who stated that only a fool would come to Archinect to learn about current geo-political events?  Why post about any of this here?  Why not go to an actual reputable political site to have these discussions?  

I don't think the portrayal that Ukraine looks like two different countries is helping much. A divided Ukraine is more problematic globally than a unified one whether it sides with Western alliances, Russia, or remains relatively neutral.

If I recall correctly (it's been a bit since I watched it or read a summary of it), that's also one of the points of the speaker in the video you posted. Isn't one of his points that a unified and neutral Ukraine is probably the best overall outcome? In other words a divided Ukraine with the western side allied with NATO and Western Europe, and the eastern side allied with Russia would be disastrous because of the conflict that would likely erupt along the dividing line between the two?

I believe that was about coming to archinect for medical advice, wasn't it? Not sure, haven't slept all that well these last few days...had to take my kids to an anti-war demonstration yesterday in our capital for which my 4yr old painted a lovely Stop Putin sign that is now in our window, he's worried about his grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins living at the border of a war zone and asked me dead serious if we have a bomb shelter in our apartment building.

"text book strawman"

not really, it is textbook cause and effect unfortunately.

Rando - pandemic info, politics, religion - it's all geo-political. The question stands. Why come to an architecture site to debate politics? Wouldn't yo be better served with by using a reputable political site?  You'd learn more and have access to better informed users with current information. Why debate here?  

I'm trying to figure out what those maps of election results prove? It's like when people show large swaths of the grand canyon as voting republican, as if....

Rando, no one called the Hungarians, Romanians and Poles "horrible people". Kudos to them for helping out and sheltering the Ukrainian people, and if I am not mistaken, the largest amount of aid, both supplies-wise and personnel-wise is coming from the US. I do not see many people from dutch families going to help.

b3ta, it proves what you want it to prove...that it's a failed state deeply divided along ethno/linguistic lines perhaps.

Ugh, can we try not to turn this into a tit-for-tat "look at what we are doing to help Ukraine" dick-wagging competition?

so much work/deprogramming to be done here!

this is the problem - you're not engaging in debate or discussion with anyone; you're presenting your dilettante "research" as objective truth, with and incredibly arrogant and condescending tone, when in reality it's quite obvious you know only as much as your profession allows.

Another possibly informative piece of the puzzle, from just before Putin's invasion, watch (or listen) at 1.25/1.5 speed and it doesn't even take too much of anyone's time:

fyi square, my profession allowed me to study Ukraine, visit Ukraine, speak with Ukrainians in Ukraine...and do a project there, but what do I know? better follow the storyline served up by the traditionalist hawks in name of "freedom and democracy"

"Ugh, can we try not to turn this into a tit-for-tat "look at what we are doing to help Ukraine" dick-wagging competition?"

The US has done enough already[/sarc]

Jimmy Dore? Really? That fuck? Really.

Wow, spoke to Ukrainians. Sounds a little bit like Sarah Palin.

Yes b3ta, really...the first and only video of Jimmy Dore I've ever seen, what's the problem with that? Don't know the guy, I just listened to what was being said, you could try it sometimes perhaps. Oh wait, you're shooting the messenger to not have to watch the message, right? And yes, I've been to the Ukraine, have walked on the same very streets that have seen an Orange Revolution, a massacre and a US backed/instigated coup and now a war, my guess is, you haven't...

Rando - I don't believe that you participate in other reputable political forums. You're too scared.

certain messengers have reputations for their messaging -- that's life when you are pushing messaging for outrage clicks

proto - that's a sad and pathetic way to get fleeting attention from people who will forget you the second they leave the forum

Sure random, you're right, but I did stay at a Days Inn, so I think I know more than you.

"Isn't one of his points that a unified and neutral Ukraine is probably the best overall outcome? In other words a divided Ukraine with the western side allied with NATO and Western Europe, and the eastern side allied with Russia would be disastrous because of the conflict that would likely erupt along the dividing line between the two?"

EA, I'm not saying that because Ukraine looks like two separate countries ethno/linguistically/politically that it should simply be cut up and divided, it is just to show how complex and complicated it all is...Ukraine actually means something along the lines of Border Land etymologically and it shows... A neutral Ukraine is exactly what China is opting for as well, so the US will obviously never let that happen, they'd rather let Putin shoot Ukraine to smithereens as long as they can dump massive amounts of weapons there for the opposing side(s) in a never ending conflict for years and years to come, draining Russia and EU resources :-( 

"Rando - I don't believe that you participate in other reputable political forums. You're too scared."

Chad, maybe I wasn't clear, but why should I preach to the converted/the choir? Has nothing to do with being scared of some little conversation/discussion, I just don't have an interest in joining a political forum. I'd rather discuss politics here and educate some in the process...you're very welcome!

"certain messengers have reputations for their messaging -- that's life when you are pushing messaging for outrage clicks"

Proto, that doesn't mean they're wrong though, just that you refuse to acknowledge that they might be right (in this case)...I think it is actually quite dangerous if you constantly and consistently shut out certain sources of information beforehand, you'll be only partly informed, more susceptible to misinformation and fake news without even realising it.

I'd rather discuss politics here and educate some in the process...you're very welcome!

you must be delightful in-person.

Rando - your posts here are riddled with strawmen, misinformation, logical fallacies, and blatant trolling. As such your credibility and reputation is nearly as nonexistent as x-jla's. With such a reputation you're not educating anyone. You're not a stupid person and you must realize this. All you're doing is hearing yourself talk for the sake of your own ego.

As I said above, this is a sad and pathetic way to get fleeting attention from people who will forget you the second they leave the forum.

I don’t want attention, I would like people to educate themselves on what is happening here. The ease at which an alternative, not American centric, but very well informed explanation to events is ridiculed and/or ignored by highly educated people is just beyond comprehension to me and makes me very sad in the times ahead. A little understanding for the arguments and issues of people you have a disagreement with is totally absent it seems, the widespread American propaganda is a stubborn one…it wouldn’t even for a single second come to mind that the US has had a major role in bringing the war back to the European continent, and the people that dare to question the role America plays on the global stage are ridiculed left, right and center.

just because we aren't playing your dumb troll games doesn't mean we aren't educating ourselves - again, pompous, presumptuous, and borderline narcissistic that you need to be involved in order for others to be enlightened.

Rando - where has anyone said that the US didn't influence the invasion of Ukraine? 

Any remotely informed person understands the long history of how the US, Russia, China, Belarus and their allies have influenced this war. 

You're not educating anyone.  You're spreading bullshit conspiracy theories about a war because you're scared and don't understand what's going on.  Just stop.  

All of Rando's points in this discussion rest on two assumptions that make me extremely uncomfortable: 1) that Ukraine shouldn't have agency in their own foreign policy pursuits, and 2) that ethno-states are good.

tduds - I've noticed that about a lot of Rando's views. He's very ethno-centric and seems to have the view that people need to be told how to live by the rules he has set forth. It's almost like an authoritarian regime with Rando.

Rando, posting of that language map is one of VPs manufactured justifications for invasion. In essence it is analogous to manifest destiny- the political predicate for the genocide of Native Americans. It takes a lot of temerity to presume anyone's ignorance of
political leaders and their policies past and present. You are not educating anyone.

tduds, those maps only heighten my sense of random.

Another thing that strikes me is that I don't think these views are particularly out of step with mainstream European liberalism.

..

I can't comment on the mainstream views of European liberalism. I can say that I find the majority of Rando's ethno-centric authoritarian views hypocritical.

Chad, can you provide anything concrete like Rando has done? Just curious!

poop876

The things Rando has posted aren't concrete - they are screen grabs and conspiracy theories. If you like I can post a dozen links to what the current situation is in Ukraine. Of course the links will be outdated by the time I post them. 

I find it odd that people are arguing about assigning blame for the war instead of the various potentially apocalyptic ways countries are attempting to stop or promote it.

"All of Rando's points in this discussion rest on two assumptions that make me extremely uncomfortable: 1) that Ukraine shouldn't have agency in their own foreign policy pursuits, and 2) that ethno-states are good." 

You couldn't be more wrong tduds...I'm not against Ukraine having agency in their foreign policy pursuits, it's just that it is very difficult to know what and where Ukraine actually is as a country and as a people, they are deeply divided, so deeply that people started a separatist movement to break away from it all. When their previous (democratically elected) president (the one that had a western backed coup against him after he shot at pro-western protestors) wanted to make a deal with the EU, a not so lucrative one for Ukraine, Russia simply offered a much better deal for Ukraine that the president thought was in the best interest of his country and his people, the Ukrainians. So the West instigated a coup and put their puppet there to force the deal with the West. So yeah, who is having agency here or there? And I don't think ethno states are by definition good or bad, nor multi-ethnic ones. Let's judge states/States by their actions how mono- or multi-ethnic they are is irrelevant. All I wanted to highlight is the long running and deep divide through the country, that seemed (understatement) to be impossible to bridge, similar to Yugoslavia after their Communist dictatorship...

Chad, It is very easy to simply label everything that doesn't fit in with your views a conspiracy. When I write here about the war in Ukraine, when I try to explain a point of view that doesn't make it my personal point of view. Sorry if that all goes over your head. I'm not pro ethno-states run by autocrats at all, doesn't mean I can't try to understand their point of view in the matter to better understand the situation.

I don't have time to refute each individual claim up there but that's Russian propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

Rando - it's easy to label something a conspiracy theory when it doesn't have any evidence to back up it's claims. It's even easier when said theory's only supporting evidence is a YouTube video.

Thx for posting that...interesting perspective, tho not sure I agree that the results follow as implied without acknowledging Russian imperialist aspirations.

There are a whole number of countries who play nicely together and are not threatened by NATO. I imagine NATO-neighboring countries look at both sides; and subsequently some are requesting entry, and others are happy to see stability but not interested in joining. The choice to apply, in and of itself, is telling of the dynamic at play when considering the Russian position.

Chad, the evidence is not the YT videos but what is being discussed in the videos, that lecture from University of Chicago has quite a clear timeline in it of events that could help you put things in perspective.

Whether or not Ukraine joins NATO is (and should be) up to Ukraine. Like I said above, any other position is based on denying agency to the country itself.

Nope, it's not up to Ukraine but up to NATO: "Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies."

Do you notice how that says "invite a country to join" and not "compel a country to join." It's up to Ukraine if they want to accept the invitation.

Note the invitation has to have consensus among all the allied member states as well. So maybe you could simply lobby at home for your government to vote no on their inclusion. Probably have a better result that trying to educate us here. You've already made it clear you have concerns with them in the EU so it shouldn't be that hard, right?

It's not cynical. Firms are definitely going to hide behind sanctions.

The actual way to support the Ukrainians would be to stop work in China, the biggest supporter of the Russians. But no architecture office in their right minds will do that, cuz moolah.

If governments can hide behind measures so will firms...have already heard that the inflation and rising prizes are because of the war in Ukraine...firms design projects in China, in the Middle-East with basically slave labour or even in the US, so yes also in Russia and Ukraine. It is totally logical to stop working on projects in countries that are invaded, when the staff of your partner offices either has to flee or join the army. If they wouldn't stop work in Russia too (apart from the SWIFT and banking stuff), it would look like they chose sides, which would be a PR-disaster.

The biggest trade partner of Russia is the EU by the way, and the biggest trade partner affected by the sanctions is also the EU, but that didn't stop the EU from (finally) imposing these sanctions and simultaneously offer Ukraine EU-membership.

I don't disagree that it would be a PR disaster to continue projects in Russia as you outline, I just think it's more of a scapegoat than anything else. If you ("you" generally ... not "you" specifically randomised) can't get paid for your work, you'll stop doing that work anyway. The PR thing is more or less to help you save face. I just don't think we need to trip over ourselves to pat firms on the back when they get the PR machine humming.

You must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

You're not missing much. No one is really trying to be an expert or, if they are, has shared that much insight apart from rando who apparently has it all figured out and has taken up the mantel of educating the rest of us ignoramuses.

Stupid typo. Mantle, not mantel.

"No one is really trying to be an expert or, if they are, has shared that much insight apart from rando who apparently has it all figured out and has taken up the mantel of educating the rest of us ignoramuses."

Maybe it's because I live in Europe and all of you simply don't...maybe it's because I've been to Ukraine and all of you haven't...maybe it's because my kids are multi-ethnic with Dutch/Polish and some German and Polish Ukrainian in there, with their grandparents living only 300miles from this warzone...maybe it's because my partner grew up under Russian occupation...maybe indeed I do know a little bit more of what's going on here and what's at stake on my continent than all of you safely far away with an ocean on each side, I'm half as far from Kyiv than LA is from New York...

We're all reading the same internet.

Don't necessarily think so, your internet is much more confined to the Anglosphere, mine is multi-ethnic and multi-lingual by default ;-)

Rando - you've made several "all of you" statements that assume a lot. I for one can say you're wrong on all of those statements when it comes to me.

Stop trying to troll.  You're really bad at it and just make yourself look foolish and rather conceded.  

Sorry rando, I think you misread my comment. I never said nor tried to imply that it didn't affect you more or less than the rest of us. Being affected by and being expert in are not the same though. Nor does proximity automatically result in better understanding of the events. I appreciate your opinions, but perhaps they'd be better received if they were presented thusly and not as fact.

I saw Ukraine on map once.

I'm a few days late to this thread, but is random saying he can contribute something of value? If so, why won't he?

He can't and even if he could he wouldn't.

Such as what topics? Is the controversial topic one with the possibility of intelligent and balanced discussion or is it just nonsense pop-culture conspiracy shit idiot students follow because it makes them think they are smarter than others?

No. White people don't like controversial topics.

Unless it's denying such topics exist.

While I agree 100% with the sentiment, I did some looking through Denver's House1000, because I was curious how this housing was tracked, and its quality of living... I found this article from last September:

"But anyone who was homeless on the streets who secured housing through the city and lives indoors for at least 14 days will have received what Johnston is considering a “housing outcome,” explained Clarissa Boggs-Blake, a manager with the Office of Emergency Management’s Joint Information Center, in an email to Denverite.

If people return to a tent from a shelter after 14 days, they will still be considered a part of the 1,000 people housed."

The article goes on that the "housing" being mentioned counts bridge & transitional housing, existing homeless shelters, and motel conversions. While those are safer than the outdoors during freezing temperatures, it's definitively not actually housing (at least according to federal standards).

The goal to also permanently shut down tent encampments also is a point of concern for me. See more on my thoughts about that from this older thread I posted.

Hi Jovan totally agree with the need to build permanent housing for all. That being said some of the initial concerns with metrics/tracking were addressed as I understand it. As one of the links I posted originally notes the program eventually found it "Housed 1,034 Denverites living on the streets in permanent units, converted hotels, and tiny home micro-communities, 98% of which are still indoors" though again totally fair to point out that "indoors" is certainly not same as a "home".

"Tiny home micro-communities" also very much bothers me, for the same reasons as the link I posted above...depending on the specific project, these "micro-communities" are really just a polite way of saying "we took all the homeless people and put them into little garden sheds where they don't actually get to have personal space or property." I'd definitely have to read more into it, but I'm very cautious with most planned/designed solutions toward homelessness.

Hey now, NH is like just a few hours away from me... Ahhhhhh, the crazy is getting closer.

I have no hope for anything anymore.

Non - you better get your hocky sticks ready.

I was a tween when Obama was elected in 2008, and have lived in a variety of political climates since then (from moderate California to liberal democrat NYC to moderate republican SLC to where I live currently in Florida). I think dismissing my (or others') views as "Oh you're just too young to know anything beyond Trump's manipulative politics" is really ignorant of the fact that our world has been alarmingly becoming more unequal in nearly all categories of social life, and that younger people simply don't want the future that's being prescribed to them.

I primarily get my news from a variety of online sources, which include large media organizations from around the world (i.e. BBC, CNN, Fox, Al-Jazeera, etc.), as well as from Youtube, TikTok, and op-eds from various international zines and independent websites.

Thank you for your response, Jovan. I appreciate it.

I do think there’s a cultural currency in urgency that is not correlated to actual impacts. No topic gets attention unless it is delivered as being dialed up to 11. While this has historically been true, it’s only in the internet decades that overstating a position in order to push a more moderate acceptable position has become a seemingly essential presentation strategy. And even more recently, it’s become a manner of communicating between people. Moderation or compromise is considered weakness (or lack of commitment; or complicity with the extreme opposite).

I question extreme statements as purposefully provocative because of this currency, especially as no one issue exists in a vacuum & not every topic can be catastrophic concurrently or everlastingly. Seeing past that communication style IMHO may require more perspective and experience [and is a spectrum without end, ie we keep learning and applying that revised perspective as we get older]. I totally get that that may appear dismissive. But I also am not going to apologize for what accumulated wisdom I can claim.

This media culture did not always exist & change still occurred.

I do want to understand why people hold their opinions. I do want to hear what helped them get there. I try to explain my arrival to a certain perspective as I am able. But I also hope that compromise is not dead because we are an incredibly complex world & no one gets their way all the time. [& sorry for the wall of text!]

The political divergence proto is lamenting here pre-dates the Trump Era by more than two decades, and is not a new thing by any measure. It's also much more accurate describe Trump's popularity and resurgent right populism as a reaction to it rather than a cause.

Note how far the median left position had shifted to an extreme vs the right median at the beginning of Trump's first term in office.

Similarly, in Congress, the positional overlap at the political center had completely disappeared by the early 1990s.

gwharton, I hope you understand the second graph you posted contradicts your assertion from the first that the liberal median has shifted so drastically to the left when comparing 1994 to 2017. If not, here's a handy visual to help. Seems it's the median right that's shifting more extreme rather than the left.

*Now I know you'll say they aren't measuring the same groups or whatever, but if US House hasn't shifted that far, what is the first set of charts showing ... registered party members?

So the first charts are about ideological consistency across 10 points, not about extremity. So you were inferring something from the visualization that the visualization was never meant to illustrate. Pew says so quite explicitly.

Congrats on being manipulated by partisan propaganda being put out there in an uncredited editorial from Investor's Business Daily

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/

@gwharton, my lament isn't really about political divergence per se, but that def is a result. Dems & reps do traffic in it purposefully. It makes the presumption of dialog or progress difficult at best.

It also matches comparative experience. Trump is considered by many on the left today to be a deranged right-wing extremist. His actual policies and governing style are bog-standard 1994 Democrat.

An animation showing what exactly? There are no x- or y-axis labels to tell you so you default to a position that leftward motion is bad. Go back and read what the Pew survey is actually talking about and you'll see it's not about extremity but consistency. If you want to say the median liberal is becoming more ideologically consistent with liberal values or viewpoints ... that's fine because that's what the chart is showing. It's showing that fewer Democrats are holding onto conservative views and actually being ideologically consistent. Pew explains this if you wanted to read:

"At the same time, the center of the scale has shifted in a somewhat liberal direction over time. To a large extent, this is the result of the public’s growing acceptance of homosexuality and more positive views of immigrants, shifts that are seen among both Democrats and Republicans (GOP attitudes about immigrants are little changed over the last decade, but Republicans are substantially less likely to view immigrants as a burden on the country than they were in the 1990s)."

In other words, what you're really complaining about is that the general public, including some of those who call themselves Republicans, is becoming less homophobic and xenophobic. The largest shifts to the left are almost entirely in the realm of recognizing systemic racism and discrimination and prejudices against poor people, immigrants, and homosexuals.

"His actual policies and governing style are bog-standard 1994 Democrat." [I didn't catch this back when]

I do not agree at all & the public record does not support that statement.

Aside from a tax cut and installing judges, nothing Trump has done has been rooted in traditional governance. He has 1) suggested (both in running for the position & in the position) illegal processes; 2) lied at an unprecedented rate (even with an allowance that we know politicians of all stripes "spin" stuff regularly); and 3) actively attempted to turn the presidency into an autocracy. These are not metaphorical partisan statements; this is his record.

Feel free to not vote but then you have no right to complain.

Isn't the right to complain enshrined in the constitution?

"screaming"? hmm...

"Isn't the right to complain enshrined in the constitution?" right next to voting...

Johnathan - not really. 

The entire idea of the 1A is that your speech can cause change and thus the government can't regulate it. If you're not going to vote then you've given up your ability to affect change. 

Sure you can still complain and feel like you're doing something, but in reality you're not accomplishing much. Now complaining and voting - that has the highest change of affecting change.

I think that would be a great idea.

It's very weird. 

Pure speculation from this non-lawyer: I think history will show some sort of collusive communication with Cannon. The slow walking & unprofessional process was unusual in its utterly non-transparent subtlety.

Cannon's decision is very obviously correct from a Constitutional law standpoint. The mystery is why it took her so long to issue it. Only Congress can create new offices and officers. Congress intentionally let the Office of Independent Counsel lapse, at which point it ceased to exist as a Constitutional body and closed. The Justice Department then tried to sidestep that by recreating it with no Congressional authority, and in doing so also deliberately tried to insulate it from accountability to any other Constitutional officer (such as the AG or US Attorney) as well as Congress itself. This was all true the moment Smith was "appointed," and has been true the whole time. Why is the charade only now being dismissed rather than at the beginning? That's the most important question.

Fine, gwharton. It's legal. So was McConnell refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland's appointment to SCOTUS. So, possibly, was trump taking classified documents home and storing them in a toilet. It's all legal. 

Do you think *any* of this is moving our country in a good direction that makes us a more prosperous, egalitarian, free society?

And don't weasel out. Are we, as a society, moving in a good direction?

This country has been heading into a death spiral for 20 years, accelerating dramatically in 2012-2014. In hindsight, preventing Garland from being on SCOTUS was 100% a good thing. The guy has demonstrated a complete disregard for justice and the law as AG.

gwharton

How has Garland shown a 'complete disregard for justice and the law as AG?'  This is a sincere question.  

Please provide examples.  

And again, no matter how shitty Merrick Garland may be, why should his nomination have been prevented (purely legally, of course) because one Senator didn't like the Black president? That was the moment that killed our country, IMO.

20 years....omg that's the most fucked statement I've read today.

Donna, don't waste your energy spiraling off on minutia. Things really aren't so complicated.

“Cannon's decision is very obviously correct from a Constitutional law standpoint.“

Um, no, not obvious at all. It’s partisan legislating from the bench: it was a page torn from Thomas’ instructive text just a short time ago when the conservative court decided presidents had broad immunity & we aren’t allowed to question it. This court is re-writing the Constitution by acting as the one true oracle who knows better than the long judicial history already in place. “Balls & strikes”, my ass…!

Hey, can you lower the dumpster fire south of my border for a bit... we're in a heat wave up here and I don't feel like running my AC on full blast 24/7.

graphemic, things truly are bad enough that I can’t ignore them. We only have rule of law for rich people, my gay friends could see forced marriage dissolution and no access to IVF, civil servants and veterans will lose rightfully-earned benefits… and even if none of that concerns you, the planet is dying, ya know? So maybe we should try to elect people who will do something about that?!

NS - time for my annual check on the job market back home? just in case parachutes need to be pulled imminently...

Bench, everyone I know is starving for staff but hardly anyone wants to actually work. Too many pseudo mid-level arch who want to "manage" and few who can actually get shit done makes for a very weird place. The folks I talk too (and us as well) refuse to overpay (ie poach) people... but the is loads of construction. Still better than trumpanistan.

I'd work in Canada but I couldn't handle the metric system.

She ignored decades of precedent, something judges at her level aren't allowed to do. But the media are cowards and so they're both siding it. And like clockwork our local fascist enablers are out here spewing bs. Thanks for the reminder of why I don't come by here anymore. 

Donna: I did not say ignore the problems! I mean to suggest that time and energy should be used strategically. It's not building power to argue with randos on the internet, and I'm sure it will only aggravate you/us, leaving no more energy for better activities like reading, phone banking, organizing, etc. I feel the despair with you! Just take care of yourself.

SneakyPete - Who is 'she'?

Judge.

Which one?  Sotomayor or Kegan? 

The one being discussed. So neither of those.

Cannon.

I didn't want to assume - the each political camp seems to 'hate' several judges. I wasn't sure if we'd spun off to the justices . . . .

I thought you didn't come here anymore?

I check in from time to time. There are good people here who I like. Unfortunately the worst voices became the loudest voices.

So you don't not come here anymore. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

And thanks for the reinforcement.

You bet!  ;) Seriously though, how have you been?  

Trying to get a new job. Enjoying my kid.

Nice! I'll probably be starting one of those next year.

I assume kid since you've always seemed to like where you work.

I have no kids and cannot father them.

Then good luck with the job search / start.

Thanks!

Heather Cox Richardson wrote recently that with all of his legitimate court cases going his way and not because of established precedent, that his is already a dictator--he's just not back in office yet. If elected, he will continue doing to this country what he's done with every business venture he's had--run it into the ground. His VP pick is just as terrible, if not worse. I'm with you, Biden because he's the only reasonable option.

Trump plans to eliminate climate change initiatives, which should be enough for every architect to vote against him.

Edit to say: Trump's *handlers* plan to eliminate climate change initiatives, he's just their puppet.

He just wants the publicity and the favor of Russians that he owes loans to. As far as I've been able to tell, he has no morals, and does not actually care about anyone else. Which makes him a sociopath. 

He's also an idiot. People keep saying he's 'smart' because of how much money he has and how 'good' at 'business' he is.. All his money is from his father. If Trump had taken the money his father gave him and simply put into a mutual fund he'd be worth 5x more than he says he's currently worth.

But he knows how to appeal to people, like any good sociopath. He just doesn't fool all of us.

It's interesting that people are calling Trump 'brave' because he 'fought off' the secrete service to stay on stage. The thing is, the secrete service removed him from the state and told him the shooter had been killed and he was safe. Trump then came back on stage. He didn't fight off anyone. He thought he was safe. It was all an act.

Right there with you. Bracing for hard impact. What a miserable state of affairs.

Harris is a super-lame EX-COP. Kudos to her for being the first colored lady VP, but not sure what her role has been in the white house except for attending dinners.

any VP has the same issues -- they're there to just support the prez & not get in the way of his policy

The thing that I don't understand is why didn't people try to get a different candidate to run months ago?

Cuz the Dems have gotten delusional in the last few years ... not sure how they could not see what most of us are seeing regarding Biden's policies and total inefficacies as a leader

Proto, as much as I dislike Biden as the president, he actually had a major role in getting Obamacare passed, so theres that. Not sure what Harris can hang her hat on

Sameold - I don't agree with your negative view on Biden. I also don't buy the idea that dems became delusional. 

If members of the party were concerned about Biden's age and capabilities, why not bring it up months ago. I think the reason is that politicians are playing politics. I think they waited until they thought there was enough support then 'jumped on the bandwagon'. I suspect these politicians saying Biden shouldn't run are working an plan to position themselves for future advancement in the form of future elections or favors.

people here are lapping up the media narratives and not looking at data. i still think biden will win, handily.. trump is historically unpopular and has lost every election since 2016. i've found the "attempted assassination makes him more popular" narrative laughable. replacing biden now is something that has never been done successfully. agree with chad - he wasn't my first choice but there's been plenty of time and process to choose someone else. if people are disillusioned now, how do you think they will feel about a replacement being handpicked by the dnc and private donor pressure?

I think Biden has done a lot of great things, and a few terrible things, but overall his record is impressive. He's definitely old, though I think he would likely be fine for another four years.

Americans, and maybe people in general, are drawn to leaders who have a dynamic presence and they don't look too closely at the big picture. For that reason I do wish that Dems had chosen someone else, an orator like Obama, Clinton or Reagan. Because of the consequences, that is probably more important than any candidate's specific views and priorities.

But we're stuck with Biden, which puts our country in a precarious position; a Trump victory would fundamentally change our country for decades at least.

Chad, I dont agree that ANYONE has a positive opinion of Biden per se, hes been extremely ineffectual before before his handling of Gaza. Is he better then Trump, sure - when the bar is set that low anyone is better.

Sameold, Biden has gotten more things done in his 3.5 years in office than many presidents, and they are mostly good things. He has had to navigate some rough waters and the country is better for it. To say he's ineffectual means you're either not looking at facts, judging him based on appearance, or both. In my opinion.

someold - If Trump was pro Palestine and would act accordingly, would you want him as POTUS again?

Chad, That would definitely be a +1 for Biden in my opinion but probably not enough. 

 Quite frankly, not sure what his "achievements" are, with his flailing immigration policies (he actually built Trump's wall), rampant inflation etc. A few symbolic gestures towards PoCs and spending about 3.5 years attacking right wingers for the "insurrection, have been completely worthless gestures to many.

Dont get me wrong, Biden even with his flailing mental abilities is still way better than Trump, but so is a doorknob.

Biden would definitely make a great Israeli PM lol. Didnt he once brag about his numbers being much better in Israel?

someold - so you would vote for Trump is he was pro Palestine? Yes or No.

No I would not. As i have repeatedly mentioned he is much worse than Genocide Joe.

So you don't want Biden and won't vote for him but don't seem to care that that means you're helping Trump? Serious question.

I live in California so my vote does not make a difference. Serious answer.

So you'll vote for Trump, got it.

Quite frankly, not sure what his "achievements" are, with his flailing immigration policies (he actually built Trump's wall), rampant inflation etc.

honestly, this shows a pathetic in ability to look at things objectively. sameold is in the blueanon camp, can't look past their own pet issues with biden, who has been one of the most progressive and successful presidents in our lifetime. since i care about infrastructure, green energy, labor, and the economy, i give him overall high marks even though he wasn't my choice in the primary. i think he's been far, far better than obama except when it comes to giving speeches.

Chad, as I have said before an now, sitting this one out. Your assumptions are just that, and if I indeed were to vote republican, I would have no shame in mentioning it.

Square, sure your "pet issues" are Infrastructure, green energy, labor and the economy, got it. If you think the economy is doing well based on the statistics the WH keeps putting out, I have a bridge to sell you.

In the same way my "pet issues" are immigration and foreign policy, on both of which Biden has been extremely ineffectual. If not being Trump is all he's got, he really should step down.

The Democrats have normalized nearly everything the Republicans have wanted to do. Now they're running away from trans people. They've abandoned workers, worked against rail workers, have done zip on the PRO Act. Yes, he got us out Afghanistan, but draws us closer to conflict in Asia, and Europe. He's been everything he said he was 50 years ago; a Zionist, and that will cost over 200k Palestinian lives. He's trying to salvage, and stem the blood letting that is happening daily, another senator just said he should end his bid. Now he decides a national rent control should happen, great. Now if he'd just nationalizes the electrical and petroleum industries.

Biden! ;)

A friend noted that if she picks Shapiro, it would be a Black/Indian/Jewish ticket. He's strongly leftist and Jewish but he thinks that may be too much diversity for the general public.

I say Wood Guy should be the VP nominee. Who's with me!

Haha, I think we've had enough stutterers in the office for a while! I'd be terrible in the role in most other ways as well. I would entertain being a strategist or speech writer, but I don't really have the skills to be great in those roles either. Thanks though. ;-)

We need more stutters in the office dang it! Represent! (I'm a stutterer as well).

Yay one more Zio?

I'm not a Zionist. Neither am I pro Palestine. I'm anti-terrorist and pro non-combatants.

Not you Chad, Im talking about Shapiro

OK.

Chad, you're pro-2nd?

Pro 2nd? Pro Second Amendment?

Actually I'm more curious about what would happen if someone tried to break into your home?

Depends. This oversimplified answers are:

If I can - I'll be in my bedroom waiting for the cops. If not then the intruder may have a very bad, and short time in my house.  

Ok. I think I understand. But let me ask you, would you feel justified in perpetrating violence on someone who violated the sanctity of your domicile? Assuming the police never arrived, or were too late to prevent your violent act.

I'm not Blue Lives Matter. Neither am I Anti-2nd. I'm anti-violence and pro-justice reform.

I would feel justified in using deadly force to was trying to severely hurt or kill me / someone else. I've done it before and I'd do it again. 

Now if I used to live in a house, kicked out the original owners, was later kicked out myself, then I moved next door, I wouldn't feel justified in using violence against the current owner.

What if there was a difference of around 1500 years in those events, Chad? And what if your whole 1500-year old scenario was supported by nothing but Bibilical texts and people parting oceans?

Wow

That’s a completely farsical narrative not rooted in anything but another completely farsical narrative. You know Bibi is

...Bibi's family is Polish, right?

Funny/Sad thing is that "moving next door", which he is equating to the lives of Palestinians is also totally farce. They were forced out. So we know where your sympathies lie, Chad...

 Moreover, with 79% of the land given to the Zios in the Oslo accords, should they not have tried to live in peace, rather then build their ugly orange county esque developments all over Palestine?

The insane idea that Israel is a state rooted in any history is Evangelical fan-fic. It is a country created at the barrel of a gun. Jews, Muslims, Christians, and B'Hai all lived there peacefully prior to 1948. To suggest that European whites have some divine right is the language of the occult.

sameolddoctor  wrote:

"Funny/Sad thing is that "moving next door", which he is equating to the lives of Palestinians is also totally farce. They were forced out. So we know where your sympathies lie, Chad.. "

 You need to read the entire text. 

"Now if I used to live in a house, kicked out the original owners, was later kicked out myself, then I moved next door, I wouldn't feel justified in using violence against the current owner."

Both sides were kicked out and then resettled the area long before the 1950's and creation of Israel.  I'm seeing this from the non combatants that have lived in the region for around 2,000 years.  

b3tadine[sutures] wrote 

Did you know [sic]...Bibi's family is Polish, right? 

I didn't know that. 

Didi you know I'm Norse?  

Then again his ethnicity doesn't impact my views on this. If you want to fight against someone for whatever reason, go ahead. Just don't actively target non combatants.

You're missing the point. Zionists claim a divine right to a land they have zero recent historical connection to, and the only reason they claim it, is because of a racist antisemitic British Lord, and US hegemony.

Back to the house defense. You've neutralized the attacker to your home, what's next?

That will never happen for any administration. You know it and you know why. You just don't want to admit it.

I'm hoping for Coconut Communism!

I'm going Ripley Hicks

.

colonialist zio regime

tell me you live in a bubble without telling me you live in a bubble.

Not a proud moment for you. Thanks for fanning the dumpster fire.

While I don't support Trump I have to agree with smaarch on this. The secrete service appears to have done things correctly. I could be wrong as the investigation isn't over. There should be limitations on the 2A. I'd add that open carry is foolish, stupid, and counterproductive to defending yourself in public.

^ownership is foolish. Anything else is splitting hairs...

It's far too late to do anything about banning guns at this point. But there are plenty of ways to improve the situation: require licensure, require training, outlaw the assault-style weapons used in virtually all mass shootings although they are not the only weapons capable of deadly results, raise the age of ownership from whatever it is now.

None of those violate 2A, they just provide common-sense reform, considering that currently the largest source of child deaths in the US is guns.

Since much of the population is armed, I would not give up my collection of antique rifles and shotguns without a fight.

Could be. It is in my countries constitution though. I don't think my ownership of firearms is foolish. I hunt with them quite a bit. I personally think there should be limits on the types of firearms someone could own though.

^slight correction, hunting is reasonable enough as long as they are stored & locked when not pointed at delicious elk. The cult of ownership & open carry is so fucking silly. No wonder Trump will win when idiots like that are behind him. Good Hogan speach tho. I miss the hulkamania days.

I think the insurance companies should lobby to require guns to be insured. We require cars to be insured for public safety reasons. In fact, the way the US treats cars could be applied to guns... some restrictions, license and insurance requirements. Additionally, we talk about car (transportation) safety... not control. I think we could do that with guns as well... gun safety, not gun control. Nobody likes to be controlled!

Some people need to be controlled though. Everyone knows someone who owns a firearm and shouldn't.

Really, who cares smarch. Trump and his buddies love guns and he almost got killed by one. Call it divine justice.

smaarch: I don't disagree with you on the open carry/secret service statement. I am curious why you're a Trump supporter. Is it him, or is it the party in general? Is it tax cuts? Genuinely curious. It's bold of you to state so here.

sameolddoctor -  

Unfortunately many Trump supporters are saying it was divine intervention that saved him. Some use this as 'proof' that Trump has been chosen by (a) god to be president.

Yes of course it will work in his favor. People wont see that if gun violence werent so prevalent, this may not have happened at all.

b3tadine[sutures] wrote in bold

 Now if I used to live in a house

[Palestinians lived in Palestine prior to 1948] 

I know. Palestinians, Jews, and various other people have lived in that area for around 2,000 years. The ethnicity of the people isn’t the issue.

 kicked out the original owners 

[Original? You mean descendants of the African Continent?] or [Zionists committing violence against West Bank Palestinians], 

 I should of said ‘current owners’ I apologize for the error. There have been groups of people that have been kicking each other out of the area for the last 2,000 years. It’s been a back and forth of control in that region for about 1,500 years. Again, it’s not about one ethnicity or group of people. 

 was later kicked out myself

  [Disposessed Palestinians],

 No, everyone. There have been groups of people that have been kicking each other out of the area for the last 2,000 years. It’s been a back and forth of control in that region for about 1,500 years. Again, it’s not about one ethnicity or group of people.

 . then I moved next door

 [Moved? With Uhauls or do mean forced at gunpoint into open air concentration camps?] 

 There have been groups of people that have been kicking each other out of the area for the last 2,000 years. It’s been a back and forth of control in that region for about 1,500 years. Again, it’s not about one ethnicity or group of people.

 I wouldn't feel justified in using violence against the current owner.

 [I think West Bank Palestinians would like a word]. 

That’s fine. They can fight if the want.  I wouldn't feel justified in doing so.  

Just don’t shoot at your other neighbor’s house as a means to ‘get’ the neighbor that kicked you out. 

 That’s the thing I have a problem with. In this current ‘war’ each side is actively killing noncombatants.  It's abhorrent and must stop.  Right now, it’s the Israelis doing the killing. Before that it was the Palestinians. Before that it was . . . . you get the idea.

I despise the military on each side of this 'war'.  You may not like it but I will not support a group that actively targets and kills non combatants.  

You forgot about the part where West Bank Palestinians haven't done anything, they are "governed" by the PLO, and not Hamas. Zionist settler terrorists have been murdering Palestinians.

It seems almost a daily function of the news in the region to demonstrate how Project Hannibal killed more Israeli citizens on October 7th than Hamas. And if you couple that with how hostages have been treated by both sides, it's not even comparable; Israel is terrorist ethnostate. Now the ICJ has said as much and condemned the occupation; they deserve the same treatment as South Africa during apartheid.

Kind of. Hamas has been killing civilians for the past 75 years. So has Israel. The PLO has supported Hamas. Palestinians were given the opportunity to create their own independent state several times. The only caveat was that Israel was to remain. Each time the Palestinians would only agree if Israel was removed. 

Both Israeli's and Palestinian's have historic 'rights' to the area. Both sides want the other to be removed. In Israel's case their government want Hamas gone. In the Palestinians case Hamas and the PLO want all jews gone. Neither will get their way so they'll keep killing everyone around them. It's pathetic and very sad for the innocent people that live there.  Each side should let the other be there and live independently. 

One las thing: I don't care which side is 'more bad'. Both sides are horrible. You say one side is fighting for 'freedom'. The other side says the same. Neither side will win this. Until both side are forced to stop killing there will be no peace.

Hamas has killed and imprisoned much lesser people than the Israelis, so theres that.

I don't care. Hamas with support of the PLO still intently  kidnap, torture, and kill innocent non combatants. Same as Israel. I'd could never support a group that does that.

chad, it's about ethnicity.

I don't care about the ethnicity of either side. In my 'house' example the ethnicity doesn't matter. If people want to be racist punters that's up to them. Just another reason why I won't support either 'side'. Side note; It's actually about religion which is even worse.

Hamas hasn't been in existence for 75 years, for one. And two, Hamas has been supported by the Zionist regime as they provide the Israelis the ability to a ointment any real dialog with the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, and the PLO.

The PLO has not advocated for the eradication of Israel for over 30 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#:~:text=Effectively%2C%20the%20PLO%20recognized%20Israel's,diplomatic%20contacts%20with%20PLO%20officials.

Hamas or other groups have been violently opposing Jewish refugees and the creation of Israel since around 1930. Hamas was created in 1987 by the Muslim Brotherhood. Before that Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon attacked Israel. Either outright or via various other groups. 

Hamas wants the eradication of Israel.  The PLO has supported Hamas on and off for around 30+ years. 

 As for the rest of your comment, please provide some evidence to support your claim.

How is it that you can both sides this? One side has 2000 lb bombs, US military hardware, nukes, the other side has rocks, gliders and tickets built with kitchen supplies. You're not even willing to entertain, or interrogate why you might be wrong. Unreal. Before you say I am the same, I'll remind you, as a fucking Gen X, I've been indoctrinated into believing Israel's existence was sacrosanct for most of my life, it was only when I had conversations with Socialist Jews that I began to understand the nefarious white ethnonationalist regime controlling Israel.

Tickets = rockets

1. If you're actively targeting innocent civilians you're evil. 
2. I don't care who has better weapons.  If you intentionally kill an innocent civilian with a 2,000 pound bomb or a low tech rocket you're evil.   
3. Israel is being evil. 
4. Hamas and the groups that support it are being evil. 

Please tell me which points you disagree with. 

2 and 4. You - white Europeans - don't get to spend 75 years of telling Palestinians they have no rights to the only home they've ever known, they don't have rights to defend themselves, ever. You don't get to murder them on the daily, for doing nothing but trying to live, ever. Tell them they are insects. Deserve genocide. Blow off the faces of babies, ever. And then tell me they have no right to fight back. This fucking country would never stand for that if it happened to us, and we've bombed people into the stone ages for having the wrong dictator. The IRA was right to defend themselves and the Irish. The freedom fighters in Palestine are right as well. Intifada every day.

b3tadine[sutures]

Are you OK with intentionally targeting innocent civilians in war? 

Do you agree with what Hamas dose and stands for? 

Just to be clear - Anyone can fight anyone they want. I simply won't agree with it when a group intentionally targets innocent civilians.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

Chad, who has bigger weapons and the support of the US, UK and Europe does matter very much. Saying that "both sides are wrong" is a very black and white bullshit statement that does not take into account the vast discrepancies between both sides.

All that said, your comment of "not being pissed when someone comes to take their own house away" speaks volumes on which side you are ever so gently biased against. But whatever, thats not the big issue.

Zooming out, Harris whos has spoken at AIPAC conferences and is pretty much an ex-cop gives me zero confidence in her abilities to stem the tide. However her refusal to attend SATANYAHU's speech to congress may be an ever so slightly optimistic.

someolddoctor - I know the conflict is not black and white. I know both sides are wrong for intentionally kidnapping, torturing, and killing innocent civilians. There is no grey area in that.

Hamas was not created by the Muslim Brotherhood they are an offshoot of the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. PLO and Hamas have not been working together for nearly 20 years. Hamas was not in existence in 1930. Show your work.

I misspoke. Hamas was a spin off of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. I never said it was created in the 1930's. I said :

"Hamas was created in 1987 by the Muslim Brotherhood. [incorrect, it's  and offshoot of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood] Before that Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon attacked Israel. Either outright or via various other groups."

b3tadine[sutures] 

Israel allegedly helped fund Hamas the same way the US created the Taliban. 

Hamas is a spin-off of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  It was formally established with Israel’s support soon after the first Intifada flared in 1987 as an uprising against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. 

Israel’s objective was allegedly twofold: to split the nationalist Palestinian movement led by Arafat and, more fundamentally, to thwart the implementation of the two-state solution for resolving the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

By aiding the rise of an Islamist group whose charter rejected recognizing the Israeli state, Israel sought to undermine the idea of a two-state solution, including curbing Western support for an independent Palestinian homeland.

When Israel changed their views on a two state system and independence for Palestine they realized how stupid this was.  

Israel changed view the two state system around 1995. By then it was too late, Hamas was here to stay. Just like the US and the Taliban a monster was created. What Israel did in funding Hamas was abhorrent. 

This doesn't justify Israel or Hamas from actively killing innocent civilians though.

Chad, you are right, there is no place for violence to solve conflicts. However, if one side continually keeps being the aggressor, creating open air prisons, withholding even water (yes, Gaza's rainwater is also israeli property), and putting kids and teens in prison without due process, the Palestinians have no choice but to retort to violence and kidnapping. Indeed, when Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and released is the last time the israelis let an inch go.

Israel never changed their view on a two state solution.

Chad you did write this: "Kind of. Hamas has been killing civilians for the past 75 years. So has Israel. The PLO has supported Hamas."

How many Israeli civilians did Khamas kill yesterday?

b3tadine[sutures]  wrote:

Chad you did write this: "Kind of. Hamas has been killing civilians for the past 75 years. So has Israel. The PLO has supported Hamas." 

 Ah! Sorry for the confusion due to my poor writing. 

 It was supposed to say "Hamas and other Arab groups . . . . "

Back to the house defense. You've neutralized the attacker to your home, what's next?

You call the cops OR you bury the body.

You don't shoot at the house across the street because your attacker lived there.  

Right. You don't kill the relatives, children, friends, and babies, right? Even if the family loved them, fed them, housed them, cared for them. You don't blow up entire villages, claiming they were obviously hiding friends of the intruder. You don't capture reporters, or paramedics trying to save the intruder so they can get their day in court. You don't torture families to get at the network of possible intruders.

Correct. Israel and Hamas both do this. It's just that Israel is better at it. Both are evil and must be stopped.  

Eamez I'm pretty sure white suburban women voted something like 57% for trump last time.

Today I learned I'm a woman.

You can be anything you want.

Serious question: What areas were part of Israel when it was created? Has the UN adjusted the boundaries of Israel since it's creation?

You ignored the 30+ congress members that boycotted the speech as a form of protest to what Yahoo (sp intentional) is doing. I heard a lot of coverage of the congress members that want the Yahoo to stop.

Yes its commendable that half of the audience was absent and they had "sitters" fill in the seats...its astounding that the rest of then DID attend and cheer on the genocidal maniac.

What do you expect? There are a lot of genocidal maniacs in that region. Israel just happens to be the only one allied with the US. I'm sure if another genocidal maniac would play nice with the US and give us intelligence and support we'd back them.

The perception of the middle east as a bunch of warmongering maniacs has been created and maintained by the US and Israel. Most of those countries were doing just fine before US interference (for oil and selling weapons in the name of geopolitics).

Sorry that upsets you. I agree that the US has messed up the region. Regardless - there is a good number of the countries that are being lead by genocidal maniacs. Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel come to mind.

True but we have messed up and gotten tyrants appointed in many of those countries

In some cases yes. They are still genocidal maniacs that don't support the US. Until another country in that area will support the US like Israel we won't stop supporting Israel.  That's one of the reasons the US 'interfered' in that region to begin with.  We wanted someone on our side.  Our 'recruiting process' failed with every other country except Israel.  It's ugly however that's the way it is.  

i wonder why "they don't support the US" lol

All scoffing aside - To defund Israel and Palestine to be left there will need to be some other country there that is loyal to the US. Until that happens the US will not supporting Israel. For that to happen other countries will have to agree to stop supporting and sponsoring terrorists. This includes Hamas.

Libya, Iraq, and Iran? Genocidal? Who are the leaders of these countries? What genocide has been committed by them? Afghanistan, Pakistan? Syria? I ffs take a poly sci class, what do all these countries have in common? Three letters. I'll let you tell me.

I know they have oil. Everyone knows they have oil. I've taken poly sci classes.  

They also have state directed terrorist groups. I supposed I should of used the term attempted genocidal maniacs. 

A quick search will uncover  . . . .

Libya - Human rights violations and abuses by armed groups and militias remain pervasive, as political elites and myriad quasi-authorities compete for legitimacy and control of territory, nearly 12 years into Libya's political transition away from Muammar Gaddafi's strong-man rule. 

Iraq - The Kurdish genocide was mounted between February and September 1988 on the winding up of the Iran-Iraq war. Central to the atrocities that were perpetrated against Iraqi Kurds was the Anfal campaign. 

Iran - too many to pick just one. 

Do you want me to go on listing the rest of the countries you asked about or do you admit that you're mistaken?  

The countries aren't 'backwards' or 'savage'.  Their leaders simply are punters who don't care about certain ethnic or religious groups that make up their citizens.  

1988
The US supported the Iraqi war effort against Iran, which saw the Iraqi regime view the Kurds' insurgency as treason. The regime's Anfal campaign in the late 1980s was a systematic attempt to exterminate the Kurdish population, with hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children executed. Human Rights Watch described the campaign as genocide in 1993, but a 2007 Hague court ruling disputed this characterization.

You mean the one against the Kurds, that the US supported?

This perhaps? https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/3/27/un-mission-accuses-eu-of-aiding-crimes-against-humanity-in-libya-2

Maybe you meant this? https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/10/16/death-dictator/bloody-vengeance-sirte

It's nice of her to stand up for what she believes in. I hope she's able to make impactful changes that will make progress towards peace in the region.

I never said that the US isn't responsible for the conditions in the Middle East. 

The US is responsible in part or completely. 

The US has done, continues to do some very bad things. 

None of that changes the fact that the countries I listed are run by leaders who have attempted genocide. In some cases they are still attempting genocide. 

The fact that the US contributed to the current political situations in the Middle East doesn't make the attempted genocide OK.

I'm scared to look that up. Especially at work.

it's too funny.