Sunshine
11mo ago
It's not a hill, it's a pit of mud that the Democrats and Republicans have been wallowing in together for the past decade.
Sunshine
11mo ago
I think the real value of a famous host on a talk show run by a major network is that they can book a higher tier of guests. I watch Bill Maher (who is on HBO now, incidentally) because he can have a panel made up of, like, a major intellectual, a Senator, and Snoop Dogg, and have them all give off-the-cuff remarks on the issues of the week. In that sense, their only real value is in that they're big enough to attract guests with star power.
the Senate is that it held almost no legal power at all
The actual heck are you talking about? The Senate had almost unlimited power through the Republic and well into the Empire (in theory if not in practice). The Senate could declare the Senatus Consultim Ultimum to suspend the constitution and grant the Consuls unlimited power, which Cicero used to execute a high-ranking Senator. The Senate could appoint a Dictator. The Senate appointed the governors of provinces. The Senate could declare someone an enemy of the Republic. The Senate could declare war.
To be clear: Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus usurped all that power, but they did it by packing the Senate. Julius Caesar added 300 of his supporters to the Senate, including non-Roman Italians and Gauls. This is like if Trump added 10 diehard loyalists to the Supreme Court and told them how to vote on each case, and someone came along 2,000 years later and said "the Supreme Court held almost no legal power at all." The Senate had lots of power, that's why Julius and Augustus spent so much time usurping it!
Sunshine
11mo ago
I was also kind of under the impression that by the time he was firmly in control it had been like a century of unrest and many of the big players already had played their hands so the Senate was already weak in practical terms not just because of legal or political maneuvers.
This is correct, but when people say "the Senate was weak" they elide a key factor: Augustus had himself elected consul 13 times. 11 of them were consecutive, meaning that Augustus was consul for 11 straight years (with various cronies as his co-consuls). The Senate was weak, but also, Augustus was monopolizing the power of the Senate.
After his 11-year term Augustus mostly stopped ruling as consul and started ruling with the powers of a tribune instead. This was in large part to free up the other consulship to give to his supporters as a reward, since the consulship was still prestigious even with all the real power stripped out of it. You can identify the exact time the consulship lost its power, because that's when Augustus no longer felt the need to hold it personally.
Sunshine
11mo ago
Here's the fun epilogue: Two generations later, Augustus Caesar pulled a reverse-Sulla. Augustus realized that the office of Tribune was so powerful that it was the only office he actually needed to hold in order to rule Rome with an iron fist. He kept all the forms of the Senate in place, but he turned every office from Quaestor to Consul into powerless ceremonial roles he could use to reward his supporters while he himself ruled as a 'mere' Tribune.
Sulla weakened the Tribunes to shut the common people out of power, whereas Augustus weakened everything except the Tribunes to shut the Senate out of power. Unlike Sulla, Augustus' 'reforms' actually stuck.
Sunshine
11mo ago
So regarding my open question of whether anyone can name an example of a US-backed terrorist who committed acts that fit the central definition of 'terrorism,' the answer is still no?
Sunshine
11mo ago
within the bounds of civil discourse
I wouldn't exactly call your examples civil. Sure, people who say those things shouldn't face any kind of punishment or retaliation, but they're also crass. You might even call them uncivil. I would not invite someone who talked like that to a dinner party.
Sunshine
11mo ago
Sorry, allow me to clarify: I'm not disputing that Hamas owns uniforms to wear in photo ops. When I say that Hamas doesn't wear uniforms, this should be taken as shorthand for saying that in battle Hamas militants disguise themselves as civilians by not wearing uniforms (as well as by other means, such as operating out of active civilian buildings like hospitals and schools and mixing themselves into civilian populations to maximize collateral damage on their own side). I am not claiming that no member of Hamas has ever worn a uniform at any time in their lives.
The US gave massive support to various jihadist groups in Syria. Also the US has backed terrorists in Libya.
Like the US bombing the middle east almost constantly since 2001? The endless drone strikes, backing jihadists and starving civilians.
So regarding my question of whether you could name an example of a US-backed terrorist who committed acts that fit the central definition of 'terrorism,' the answer is that no, you cannot name one?
Hamas fighters do wear uniforms.
No they don't.
Israel is a genocidal nation that is illegally occupying territory. Any action against it is not only karmic, it is self defence.
Self-defense sure, whether it's karmic is a question of metaphysics, but 'illegally' occupying territory? Since when is it illegal to occupy territory? Hamas invaded Israel, Israel counter-invaded Hamas. That's not illegal, that's just how it works when you invade somebody. Do you think there's some kind of international treaty that says that Hamas is allowed to kill Israelis but Israel is not allowed to fight back?
The US has a long history of backing and supporting terrorists.
Can you name one? It's interesting that the first "terrorist" you named, Fethullah Gulen, is only classified as a terrorist by two governments: Turkey and Pakistan. If the best example you can come up with is only recognized by two Islamist regimes of dubious legitimacy, then I have to wonder if the point is really so well-supported.
The US has a long history of supplying arms to enemies-of-enemies to attempt to achieve its strategic aims, but that's not really a central example of terrorism. A central example of terrorism is when you murder lots of people for no reason at all except to sow terror among a civilian population. If you can't provide an example of that then I'm not going to give the word "terrorist" much weight.
Killing representatives in a diplomatic process is abhorrent. Palestinians are a part in an armed conflict.
Hmm...
They are legal combatants.
HMMMMM...
Hamas' fighters do not wear uniforms. That makes them war criminals, it makes any war they participate in an illegal war, and it means they have none of the rights and privileges afforded to legal combatants. Hamas is a non-state terrorist actor and any action taken against them is merely an international police action, not subject to the rules of war.
Sunshine
11mo ago
There are lots of reasons to host a US base and loudly proclaim that you're their ally, especially if you're a tiny little oil-rich Middle Eastern country with neighbours who might covet that oil for themselves. There are even more reasons to give the US President a free airplane, if you can afford it and want to ingratiate yourself with him. Qatar literally only exists because of the rules-based international order backed up by US military power.
From my perspective, the fact that Qatar has already invested so heavily in the USA is all the more reason the USA can kick them around without consequence. If Qatar abandons the alliance then all the money they've spent building credit with the USA will be wasted. It's more likely that they'll use this as a bargaining chip, "Remember that time you let Israel bomb us?"
Sunshine
11mo ago
I don't think the American public would really believe that a Chinese bomber could get into US airspace without being intercepted. The Americans are supposed to have the best air force in the world. If someone gets bombed by a stealth bomber in the the mainland USA, I think most people would rightly assume that the Americans must have done it (or allowed it).
Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?
If a terrorist was living in the USA and a major allied country wanted them disposed of, I would expect the USA to do the arresting and/or whacking with their own troops. If Qatar was really an ally they should have offered to assassinate Hamas' leadership themselves. As for Fethullah Gulen, he's not a terrorist, he's a pretender. Coup attempts and terrorist attacks are generally mutually exclusive, and sheltering pretenders from semi-friendly powers is a practice as old as civilization itself. Like the Romans sheltering Arsinoe to have a backup Egyptian queen, the Americans might have a strategic interest in keeping an alternative Turkish government in their back pocket.
Zelensky has traveled to the United States multiple times, if the Russians blew up his limo would that be acceptable? What about the reverse, if Ukrainian nationalist psychos had shot down Putin's plane over Alaska?
If the Russians blew up Zelensky on American soil that would be a poor strategic decision. It would give the Americans a legitimate reason to intervene, which is the last thing Putin wants. Likewise, Qatar now has a legitimate reason to intervene in or even declare war on the United States if they so choose. I don't think that they will, for obvious reasons, but the option is open to them.
If Ukrainian terrorists shot down Putin's plane over Alaska that would be awesome. It would probably escalate the war in Ukraine, which would be bad for the Ukrainians, but from an American perspective it would be great. The Americans would have no real involvement but their rival would be weakened, and anyway it's not like Putin's successor is going to start a nuclear war on his first day as dictator of Russia. That's the capstone of his career, he's the last person in the world who will want to rock the boat.
Sunshine
11mo ago
Lefties more or less OPENLY suggest that it'd be morally good to kill him and his associates.
I'm not much of a lefty, and if I had a button that would make Trump die of a heart attack I would press it on utilitarian grounds. A few QALYs from an old man who's already lived a life of ease and luxury, compared to the political chaos he causes? Easy trade.
Then again, maybe I am a lefty. The Motte is more heretic blue tribe than it is red tribe.
That aside, I think people catastrophize about what would happen if a President were assassinated. The President is like a Jedi - if you strike him down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. If President Trump is shot, what do you get? Acting President Vance with emergency powers. If you kill Trump and Vance, what do you get? Acting President Mike Johnson leading a unified (and terrified) House and Senate, declaring martial law and putting tanks in the streets of Washington DC with the overwhelming support of the public.
The US Federal Government is one of the only institutions in history that becomes more powerful when its leader is killed.
What we know is that India was a rich nation turned destitute over centuries of colonialism. India suffered from preventable famines that killed millions in a few decades. Famines of magnitudes that the nation hadn't seen for centuries prior.
Pardon me, but I don't think we do know that. I would be surprised if we have such complete and accurate data about famine in pre-British India that we can confidently state that they didn't have famines that were as bad as the ones they had under British rule. Furthermore, do we all know that these famines were preventable? I don't.
Finally, did British rule actually cause India's economic growth to slow down? Because if so I was also not aware of that.
Naively, I would assume that being ruled by one of the earliest countries to industrialize (Britain) would mean that India had better access to the technologies of the Industrial Revolution than a country outside the British sphere. Since industrialization turns every other variable into a rounding error, I would expect early access to British technology to similarly drown out any damage the East India Company or the Raj were capable of doing. Bear in mind that the number of British people on Indian soil was always tiny, and for the most part the British were just occupying the top rung of a pre-existing power structure that was, and remained, populated almost entirely by Indian people who were carrying on day-to-day business as they always had. I would be surprised if such a small number of people could have a significant impact on India's economic growth.
Sunshine
11mo ago
That description does not seem like a match for what I saw in the video. If there had already been a physical altercation before the video took place, why didn't the two girls run away?
It seems clear to me that there was some kind of altercation which took place off-camera before the video starts in which the girl showed the hatchet and knife to the migrants. It was only after this that the male migrant started filming, which is why he already knows about the hatchet and knife when the video starts. Since the girls stick around and engage in trash talk rather than running away screaming, we can presume that no significant blows have been exchanged before the video begins. If there was violence then it must have happened after.
I would also not be surprised if a fundraiser bent the truth a little bit to make the victim more sympathetic.
I feel like there's no need to actually say, "Yes, sir." I'm sure you would get the same effect if you say, "Sure thing, man." The main thing is to remain calm, show whatever papers or cards you need to show, and comply with whatever the local rules are until the cop leaves.
More options
Context Copy link