OccamsRazer @ OccamsRazer @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

374

Joined

2 yr. ago

So many of these kinds of stories lately, its hard to fact check them all. I mean, I guess it's possible, but I find it tough to believe that Israel is on an extermination campaign let alone one that is excessively cruel and outrageously evil. Maybe I'm naive, but if Israel hopes to present themselves as a first world country and a modern civilization, then they can't honestly expect to get away with that kind of thing.

Well when you literally name your group after the personification of evil according to Christianity, intending to be antagonist to Christians, you can expect some antagonism. That's not to justify pipe bombs obviously, but you can't simply choose a name like that then act confused when people assume the worst about you.

It is inevitable for a state funded organization to become aligned with the party that is willing to give them more money.

There's actually a lot more bad choices but you never know about them because nobody cares.

I guess I don't know what to say then, besides that I strongly disagree. I find it strange that it's so easy for people to dismiss others as "bad" people and don't feel any obligation to try to understand them. For me, the world isn't so black and white as that.

Republicans are more unified because their base is more homogeneous compared to Democrats. Republicans basically make up the single biggest demographic in the country, and Democrats are everyone else. Imagine if half of the country were LGBT? They would be able to have their own political party, and would be able to focus on issues specific to their demographic with little concern for other demographics. Democrats biggest challenge is in somehow catering to such a wide variety of interests that don't necessarily align. They have to become more tolerant and accepting of different interests, but there is also a tendency to focus on the one thing they all have in common, which is their political enemy. In that way, Republicans are the only acceptable "bad guys", and everyone on their team is "good". It's tribalism. Republicans do it as well in a slightly different way, more outwardly focused. It's part of human nature and the only way to fight it is to be aware. Of course politicians eagerly embrace and use this dark aspect of humanity as much as they can get away with.

If you mean all politicians, then I agree with you. It's a little naive to think that good and evil is separated along party lines.

That's a little too vague and conspiratorial for my liking, and it's hard for me to give it too much credibility.

But that just turns the legal system into a weapon for driving public sentiment, another political tool instead of a means to bring justice to criminals. If it never leads to a conviction, at some point you should wonder why. Also you are giving too much credit/blame to conservatives. That might be true if they were always in power, but the they aren't, and haven't been. So why do the Democrats keep letting them get away with it?

Lol ok

I think it's the same as for the Clintons or Biden. There are probably shady things that they did, but we will never actually know or be able to prove anything. Their enemies certainly tried hard enough without success. Going after them was a political move for them as much as it is/was for Trump, and if you can't prove anything over years of investigation and legal actions then you need to let it go, even if you believe that they are probably guilty.

Just to reiterate, I personally think Trump easily could have colluded with Russians in their interference. I believe that he would do it if he knew he could get away with it, and maybe he did. but apparently nothing can be proven ("insufficient evidence" and all that) so we need to drop it and move on, effectively assuming innocence.

PBS, NPR, American Bar Association, etc are not what I would call right wing propaganda, but I guess it's relative. If I understand correctly though, your stance is that Mueller was simply getting the information out there for others to act on if they chose to. In that case, why have they not acted? My impression from legal summaries, including from the American bar association, is that they are not pursuing it because the Mueller report couldn't find enough evidence to build a case. I trust their assessment and summary of the report more than what I can get out of reading it myself in it's entirety.

So what really happened? Nobody knows for sure and there is not enough evidence to do anything about it. It's a non-topic.

How long until he gets jail time? How many continuous years of lawsuits and investigations before they get him? Is the system really that broken that he keeps getting away with it or are the charges simply weak to begin with? Tbh I don't really know, but I have serious Trump fatigue.

Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities". What does that mean to you?

Also, do you extend this level of courtesy to events that make your political opposition look bad? It's easy to find the energy and motivation when defending your team, but it rarely goes the other way.

So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?

Uhh.. no u?

Obstruction of justice is a different accusation than collusion with Russians. The report states that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion, but there may be a case to prove obstruction of justice if they decided to pursue it. But they aren't going to. Which means absolutely nothing, at the end of the day. You can't work with it, can't assume anything or draw any conclusions. It's not even a hypothesis let alone one that can be proven or not proven.

Literally every source says there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion, from the Mueller report specifically.

Sounds like you are working from a different definition of fascism.

I'm unclear if this makes it easier or more difficult to do an insurrection. What am I missing?