He's unlikely to get jail time, unlikely to pay any fines he receives and may still ride gerrymandering to finally Noeming the last sickly vestiges of US democracy.
take as many free shots as he wanted at the heavily restrained and completely innocent man, a perk the military provided to each new recruit. “Now, I’m not entirely sure what this gentleman’s whole deal is. Looks like he could be from the Middle East.
That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won’t stay well adjusted for long.
Neuroscience supports this. Giving someone power causes changes in your brain that makes your brain less capable of empathy, closer to the brain of someone born with psychopathy.
In parliamentry systems you can dissolve parliament, requiring an election. It's usually a way to bypass deadlock. Imagine if, when republicans are fucking around with the debt ceiling and pissing off the country, you could threaten to call a snap election and let them answer to voters then and there.
So if this passes it would basically force a national referendum on netanyahu's leadership.
If gantz is pushing this, probably he thinks he can win. That could mean netanyahu's many financial and political crimes being looked into again. Maybe.
It could mean more of a focus on getting hostages back, but it might not lead to much change in gaza:
Gantz’ centrism is not equivalent to Western centrism: Natenyahu’s Likud party and other Israeli nationalists have “gone so right-wing that the center in Israel has changed,” a Middle East Institute think tank fellow told Al Jazeera. Previously serving as Commander-in-Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces, Gantz has overseen two military offensives in Gaza and labeled several Palestinian NGOs terrorist organizations, indicating it is “unlikely” he would improve the conditions for Palestinians living in Gaza
I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I'm not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a "10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement".
Thierry’s district ... is not a swing district. ... Previously, Thierry had beaten a Libertarian candidate 87%-13%, with no Republican running in the race.
In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.
The popular vote matters, proof that we're not a democracy matters. Not a lot, probably not at all but maybe in the future it might form part of an argument for making things better.
Given the stakes I'm still going to put in the small effort for a likely doomed longshot. That's about the most we can hope to achieve with electoral politics, but I still think it's worth doing.
I've seen a number of polls that reiterate how strongly youth and democrats oppose israel's actions and call it genocide. I don't think it's an echo chamber effect.
This poll from March shows 55/36 disapprove/approve.
Moreover, democrats disapprove at 75% vs 18% approve and independents disapprove at 60% to 29% approve. Sure, republicans approve at 64%, but ain't no republicans switching to biden over gaza.
Those numbers are brutal for democrats, and getting worse. More obvious genocide from the israelis and feeble lies from biden isn't going to reverse that trend.
I personally don't think that fear of assassination is what's driving biden and the democrats policy on this.
Given that netanyahu and gvir were almost certainly involved in killing yitzhak rabin I'm sure they're capable, I just think the risk/reward is off. They can affect US policy without the risks inherent in killing an allied head of state.
I didn't downvote. I don't see you having any down votes. I don't disagree with you, I just don't feel that your comment addressed the specific point I was making.
I don't disagree that states are devoid of any ethical capabilities, but they're not cartoon supervillains. When states are cruel, it's for specific reasons to achieve specific aims.
I don't understand what the democrats think they are getting or avoiding with this. To me it looks lose/lose for them.
States just aren't moral entities - there's no reasonable moral ground for most anything an imperial power does. It's almost always just about securing more power.
But I don't understand how this makes sense for the democrats from even a realpolitik perspective.
100% death tax on all assets over $1m excluding a single house. That my final offer.
There's no justification for a birth lottery that awards democracy-warping levels of wealth to whoever had the evilest parents.
That's just completely not true though.
We don't have any evidence of finding out yet.
He's unlikely to get jail time, unlikely to pay any fines he receives and may still ride gerrymandering to finally Noeming the last sickly vestiges of US democracy.
I'm very happy with the verdict though.
Nothing but his own internal monologue and no interaction with the rest of the world? That's basically a campaign rally for him. He'd love it.
The only way this gig is ethically justifiable is if the support act is a guillotine.
Obviously there's a proxy war between russia and the west in ukraine, but I don't think the US wants a long attritional war.
They could have done more to not end up in one, but I think escalation management really is driving a lot of decisions in washington.
Brutal.
Across time, space and cultures, to be ruled is to be ruled by villains.
Neuroscience supports this. Giving someone power causes changes in your brain that makes your brain less capable of empathy, closer to the brain of someone born with psychopathy.
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/how-power-erodes-empathy-and-steps-we-can-take-rebuild-it
https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-empathy/201909/power-blocks-empathy
https://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html
https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/
In parliamentry systems you can dissolve parliament, requiring an election. It's usually a way to bypass deadlock. Imagine if, when republicans are fucking around with the debt ceiling and pissing off the country, you could threaten to call a snap election and let them answer to voters then and there.
So if this passes it would basically force a national referendum on netanyahu's leadership.
If gantz is pushing this, probably he thinks he can win. That could mean netanyahu's many financial and political crimes being looked into again. Maybe.
It could mean more of a focus on getting hostages back, but it might not lead to much change in gaza:
Thank you this kind of comment is why I come here.
A fair point.
Yeah but presumably the parent in the M1 has a spouse operating a surveillance drone to provide real time
firechild correction?I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I'm not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a "10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement".
In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.
The popular vote matters, proof that we're not a democracy matters. Not a lot, probably not at all but maybe in the future it might form part of an argument for making things better.
Given the stakes I'm still going to put in the small effort for a likely doomed longshot. That's about the most we can hope to achieve with electoral politics, but I still think it's worth doing.
I've seen a number of polls that reiterate how strongly youth and democrats oppose israel's actions and call it genocide. I don't think it's an echo chamber effect.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
This poll from March shows 55/36 disapprove/approve.
Moreover, democrats disapprove at 75% vs 18% approve and independents disapprove at 60% to 29% approve. Sure, republicans approve at 64%, but ain't no republicans switching to biden over gaza.
Those numbers are brutal for democrats, and getting worse. More obvious genocide from the israelis and feeble lies from biden isn't going to reverse that trend.
I personally don't think that fear of assassination is what's driving biden and the democrats policy on this.
Given that netanyahu and gvir were almost certainly involved in killing yitzhak rabin I'm sure they're capable, I just think the risk/reward is off. They can affect US policy without the risks inherent in killing an allied head of state.
I didn't downvote. I don't see you having any down votes. I don't disagree with you, I just don't feel that your comment addressed the specific point I was making.
I don't disagree that states are devoid of any ethical capabilities, but they're not cartoon supervillains. When states are cruel, it's for specific reasons to achieve specific aims.
I don't understand what the democrats think they are getting or avoiding with this. To me it looks lose/lose for them.
States just aren't moral entities - there's no reasonable moral ground for most anything an imperial power does. It's almost always just about securing more power.
But I don't understand how this makes sense for the democrats from even a realpolitik perspective.