leicsmac

I know But sometimes, it's useful to see, right here, exactly how some folks think. If only to be more certain that your own thoughts are lining up right.

Getting a bit nasty out there now.

Yes, found out through a high powered round to the face. I'm unsure that obstructing the law is a capital offence for which sentence is to be carried out summarily, though. Apparently so WRT Newsom, I really don't have much of a horse in the race except specifically regarding his suitability for running for office in 2028. He's clearly not suitable for reasons already stated, if you want to bring other reasons to the table, then fair enough, it's just rather much to call such things facts. Vance was making the same talking points you are, at practically the same time. Given that Bowen has both seen more and forgotten more about international relations than practically all of us on here will ever know, his view, while still opinion, carries weight, I reckon. If you dive a little deeper into the article, it explains exactly why the US would be a rather special case if it chose to exercise its muscle through extended international coercion at this time, given the amount of power that it has. Edit: but in all seriousness, it's good to have you back. Having a genuine and erudite apologist for this administration and the vast majority of their actions (rather than just a few) adds... flavour to the thread when there might not have been much before.

So has already been stated. I'm not sure either, but I don't think Newsom can carry enough swing votes. They won't go for Kamala again.

Somewhat related, Jeremy Bowen with a piece on the international side: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wg7437dvo Two particularly apposite paragraphs: "Unlike other interventionist US presidents, Trump does not cloak his actions with the legitimacy, however spurious, of international law or the pursuit of democracy. The only legitimacy he needs comes from his belief in the force of his own will, backed by raw US power." And the last... "The risk is that, if Trump sticks to his course, he will push the world back to the way it was in the age of empires a century or more ago - a world where big powers, with spheres of influence, sought to impose their will, and where mighty authoritarian nationalists led their peoples to disaster." I think that is less of a risk and more of an inevitability.

After which he will no doubt end up either back on duty or behind a desk with a full pension. Might even get a good wedge from a GoFundMe from concerned citizens. Accountability. One of my questions wasn't hypothetical and deserves an answer. Do you or do you not think that the death of Renee Good was justified? It's a reasonably simple yes or no question. Coming from someone with considerable expertise and truly impressive command of language and evasion in that area, I'll happily take that as a compliment, ser. Like clearly recognises like. BTW, a fact is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and that the Japanese government formally surrendered in World War II on the 2nd September 1945. Viewpoints on how a politician is doing their job tend to be, mostly, matters of opinion. I'm not sure where the opprobrium is coming from there in any case, seeing as we both believe the man to be unsuitable for the top job, just for differing reasons. And? It's linked to the current debate. You and Vance appear to be of one mind on this one.

Well, Vance certainly thinks so, if the current news is any judge. Also the FBI bringing things in-house and getting out the whitewash.

I'm sure that you have. I'm also sure that they and all others like it could well be entirely fabricated. And even if they're not, see below. And that justifies taking her life with no accountability for it? In number, and yet. The point is that by the logic being expressed here, that is a possible indulgence that they could engage in. In this case, they may (emphasise may) have engaged in it already. Were they having their entire childcare budget withheld by the Biden administration, as well? Can't say that I agree with the criticism of Newsom here, but as per above he's already too divisive a figure anyway, so fair enough. Interesting thing though, even though the inference here is that the Dems are rather stuck, they're still the bookies favourites to win in 2028. Strange times.

I'm not sure that excuses skipping due process and going straight to the extrajudicial bullet through the head. Unless the ready made excuses regarding a capital threat apply and "she had it coming", clearly.

Ah yes, the "brown people might be doing some bad things so we'll indulge in our bigotry by tainting them all and extend that to the governor as well, because he ran against us last time" scandal, I remember now. Appreciate the reminder. Think Newsom is too divisive, so it seems a pretty open field. It's a shame Booker isn't in the picture again. See above.

Governor Walz has been excellent throughout this whole sorry business, I will say. Perhaps someone the Dems could look at for 2028?

If you're right about that being the predominant view in society (and you may well be, goodness knows there's enough examples and I'm familiar with The Selfish Gene), then we're all fvcked no matter what. It might be futile and it might well be wrong, but I've got to think we can do better, because if not the only thing that's left is the void, and fvck that. Even though it's likely better than an even chance you're right. I guess at some point we'll find out either way.

Evidently too logical and too much legwork for these guys. Can I ask what the point of this line of reasoning is, overall? Yes, and thus you arrive at a similar paradox that Popper talked about in terms of tolerance. As mentioned above, it's a dilemma that's incredibly difficult to solve, but I tend to come down on my side of it because I think it causes less harm than the other. Am I sure of that? No idea, but one thing I know for sure is that conflicts driven by either cultural or other reasons are a curse on our species and one we need to grow out of before we get some real problems.

I was speaking in generalities when I referred to experts, given this subversion of truth to the gobbiest speaker happens in many other places, and with many other consequences, than here. And yes, reputable from the point of view that they are more likely to be taking the truth than a random in a comment section, given historical evidence. I'm sorry, but they can, they do, they have and they will. All of those. There's a reason witness evidence alone is (the vast majority of the time) not enough to secure a conviction in court when the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. "Blocked their path" = "happened to be in their way". That's the same unless you're a fan of semantics imo. And while I agree it's likely best for someone to not get in the way of US law enforcement for exactly this reason, that doesn't make the system where innocent people are killed and no one answers for it because of ridiculous and cowardly justifications in any way right, and nor does it mean that system cannot or should not change. Because all we have right now is a system where those with something on their mind can don a uniform and kill at will anyone who happens to get in their way as long as they can say (and provide the flimsiest possible pretence that) they were acting in self defence.

Perhaps having a look might add clarity, then. I certainly agree that actions taken "in the field" are often split-second and difficult, but I also find it entirely unacceptable that people who turn out to be innocent can be killed and then no one answers for it because making a mistake that ends someone's life somehow doesn't matter if you "fear for your own life". Sorry, I wasn't clear enough there, allow me to further clarify: The belief in cultural inequality, when applied in all but the most somehow benevolent fashion, will end disastrously for our species, through conflict and/or ignorance of mutual natural problems we face. Those who believe in such inequality appear to be in a very great deal of denial about this ending and their role in it. I think that denial is cognitive dissonance itself.

Fair points well made all the way through there. It's just a difficult thing to reconcile that while the above is true, there are people who will use similar beliefs regarding "better cultures" to engage in truly grotesque behaviour that won't end well for anyone, even them. I know it's a bloody difficult circle to square, though.

Appreciate the clarification. One of the many other things that could have been done before shooting her in the face probably should have been done, then.

Right. Such a viewpoint is always going to be subjective and therefore potentially flawed. And, once again, a lot of people believing that they view it objectively and acting on that belief is demonstrably dangerous and harmful.

It is. I wonder how tricky the similar cognitive dissonance is regarding knowing but still denying that such beliefs in cultural inequality, when applied, only end one way for our species. But that's humans for you, I guess. We all have our crosses to bear, apparently.

Aren't paradoxes wonderful? To add to this, I would state that a culture that relies on the ideas stated here is always going to consider itself superior and therefore be a problem until such ideas are addressed, but ones mileage will vary on that. But if you want to keep picking holes, feel free, but for me it's an obvious fact that belief in cultural superiority, and the willingness to apply it through various methods, is a big reason why so much why there is so much suffering in the world, why there has been since time immemorial, and why there will be more to come.

The trick is addressing that while leaving the attacking intent that he has alone, because that's a large part of the reason why he's so good. Like KP, he has enough of that factor to intimidate opposition.

Yep, perhaps one day accountability when one of those guns is used will be part of it too. And the issue right now is that particular culture isn't considering itself equal (which an argument could be made for), but superior, and choosing to make it everyone's problem.

Monroe Doctrine, yes. Don't think that makes it much less stupid or self-serving or harmful. Perhaps one day that insanity will change. Or perhaps one day, at least, such agents will actually be held accountable when they get it wrong and an innocent party dies, which they often do.

Man really doesn't do himself any favours, does he? Hopefully this might be the catalyst that causes him to knuckle down a bit and make the most of the serious talent that he undoubtedly has.

And in other news today: "Today, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told an audience at a Goldman Sachs energy industry event in Miami, Florida, that the United States will take control of all oil from Venezuela for the foreseeable future. Lisa Desjardins and Nick Schifrin of PBS Newshour reported this afternoon that Trump administration officials have told lawmakers that they plan to put the money raised from their seizure of Venezuelan oil into bank accounts outside the U.S. Treasury. Desjardins clarified that 'sources said they understood these as similar [to] or decidedly "off-shore" accounts.' Yesterday, Trump announced that, as president of the United States, he would control the money from the sale of Venezuelan oil." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/07/trump-oil-venezuela-subsidies/ But it's not about the oil at all, right?