GreenSkree

As bad as it is now, if Trump returns to power, he would make the Palestinian and Ukraine situations so much worse. Beyond that, we could see genocide here.

Because the situation is polarizing in American politics and unlikely to resolve any time soon, it seems unwise to push potentially unpopular policy with short-term gains that lose you an election to someone who would probably celebrate the end of Palestine and their people.

It's like complaining that the roof is leaking and wondering why no-one cares while the house is on fire.

Another one of his attorneys turned to testify against him in the election fraud case.

Are you talking about the fairly recent news about Jenna Ellis? Unless I'm mistaken, she's cooperating with a different set of fake electors cases that's based out of Arizona.

Even as someone who follows this stuff fairly regularly, it's impossible to keep track of all of Trump's criminal cases... and that's just the stuff we know about that prosecutors have picked up.

The documents case could absolutely lead to jail time if Smith can push for another judge. Cannon can’t postpone indefinitely without repercussions.

If he loses the election and if the Supreme Court stays out of it, I'd agree.

He also has sentencing scheduled in September for his felony convictions, though I don't have a clue what that will be or what appeal timeline and whatnot looks like.

It's frustrating to see all of this move so slowly. I know these things take time, but it feels like there was no urgency in 2021 when he left office to deal with the election interference and numerous, publicly known, criminal acts.

Let me know when the keel fails and the whole thing breaks in two.

Christian National (or Christofascism, whichever term you prefer) has very little to do with Christianity as a religion. Best I can tell, it's a means to an end. It will borrow ideas, justifications, and recruit followers from Christianity, but in the US, this seems to be the main mythology the Trump cult is basing itself around (and it seems that most fascist movements have a "mythology" of fake facts they are grounded in).

So while "Christianity" isn't upfront most of the time, certain issues and ideas - probably most everything from the right's "culture war" are basically Christian national ideas, and by osmosis, a ton of Christians seem to be absorbing these positions by default.

The people most swayed by Christian Nationalism appear to be non-religious (or non church affiliated) conservatives. It's all just familiar enough and an amalgamation of ideas they've already been conditioned (by various media consumption) to believe.

But for a lot of more active Christians, I've seen a spectrum of attitudes. The number of them that adore Trump seems lower than the previous group, but a lot of them will vote for him because 1) he's the Republican candidate and Democrats are icky 2) they may be a 1 or 2 issue voter, 3) because an authority figure they trust is telling them to.

I've been trying to figure out the link between Trump and why portions of the religious right is completely obsessed with him, and a lot of it is still a mystery to me.

Also, I recently watched this and found it really informative:

https://youtu.be/P4gjE0bpk9k?si=5lExMbjqkyM4RTpI

It's clearly not a hoax.

You want to put Trump back in...? Did you forget how he ran things 2016-2020, plus Jan 6th, a literal (but horribly executed) coup attempt?

Given the rulings from the recent rulings from the Supreme Court, Trump will be emboldened to do whatever he wants "with immunity". I just can't wrap my head around how anyone thinks this is a good idea.

Add an extra column to the right side of the board.

I'm one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it's the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren't as common as they used to be).

To me, it's just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn't, who cares? Like, you wouldn't say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux... Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.

It's not even an inconvenience. Raw milk is harder to get, more expensive, and doesn't keep as long. And it's the sort of thing you have to actively look for to find it.

The thing I can't figure out is where these dumb opinions and attitudes are coming from and why is it getting worse? I can't go on social media without coming across something insanely stupid within a few minutes (like, I just saw a pro-raw milk post this morning on Facebook). But it's not just online - I'm seeing more and more "normal" people I know just adopt patently false ideas.

Like, what's happening to our society that people are just not using critical thinking anymore?

You know fascism has a definition, right? It doesn't mean "I don't like it".

Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.

I think this is overly naive and simplistic.

So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?

(I'm not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)

The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don't have any easy answer unfortunately.

• Palestine doesn't have a conventional army or a means to fight Israel the same way Ukraine is fighting Russia.
• Israel's reaction and occupation of Gaza Strip is horrible.
• Historically, Israel's treatment of Palestinian people has been completely unacceptable.
• Hamas' actions have been awful, both historically and with the first attack in October where they started this conflict. Their attacks routinely target civilians, which is unacceptable.

So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes -- I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.

So, unfortunately, I think there are no "good guys" here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.

Generally, I'd agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?

When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.

Notable events:

• Remilitarization of the Rhineland (Mar 1936) -- this was a clear power move and violation of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1. With no real reaction from the France/Britain, this was a clear indication to Hitler he could continue to push things much further.
• Anschluss (Annexation of Austria, Mar 1938) - Germany was prepared to take Austria by force, but managed to do so with only the threat of violence. This was also against the Treaty of Versailles and also had no real reaction from the Allied powers.
• Sudetenland conquest (Sept 1938) - Germany pressures Czechoslovakia for pieces of it's territory that border Germany. British PM finally gets involved, allowing the exchange of territory for a promise of peace. This is the famous " Peace for our time declaration.
• Annexation of territory from Lithuania (Mar 1939) - Lithuania pressed to give up territory under threat of war.
• Czech/Slovokia split and occupation/control (Mar 1939) - Under further pressure and threat of invasion, Czechoslovakia split and both come under German control.
• Invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR (Sept 1939) - First open conflict. France and Britain declare war on Germany, roughly a year after the "Peace for our time" negotiations/declaration that clearly made a difference!

As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.

Knowing what happened, it's easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.

I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded. Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.

The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, "Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever." is that Russia won't stop there. They'll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they're ready.

The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.