3 ms·

The US is under attack, so the amount of anti-US propaganda is at an extreme. The lies told about the US government or what it's doing or why it's doing it are

by CMay 2mo ago

The US is under attack, so the amount of anti-US propaganda is at an extreme. The lies told about the US government or what it's doing or why it's doing it are extreme. The US is applying unitary executive theory to bypass gridlock in congress while still trying to operate within the law. They are surrounded by lawyers and thinktanks to work through this, which is far from lawless. The reason we're doing this is to deter China and push back against what they're doing in the world. We're in a moment very much like the moment before World War 2. It's not the same, but it's similar enough that action is warranted. As for guns, generally if someone is shot while having a gun it's because of all the other things they did that led up to that moment.

acdha 2mo ago
> They are surrounded by lawyers and thinktanks to work through this, which is far from lawless This is so naive I struggle to believe you can possibly believe it. For example, there is a legal requirement that Congress authorize military action longer than 60 days. They’re advancing a theory that this is unnecessary or magically resets a timer anytime a cease fire is declared but that doesn’t make it lawful, any more than those guys saying they can only be tried in admiralty courts are lawful just because they don’t want to stop what they’re doing. > The reason we're doing this is to deter China and push back against what they're doing in the world. We’re deterring China by losing to a much weaker opponent while simultaneously giving China a huge economic and political advantage? Giving Iran the ability to tax shipping for the first time and doing it in Chinese yuan is a deterrent in the same sense that you deter a dog by feeding it sausages. > As for guns, generally if someone is shot while having a gun it's because of all the other things they did that led up to that moment. I can see why you prefer to believe this but it sure is striking to see that politically-incorrect gun owners have their guns used to justify killing them while politically-correct ones are seen as having a right to carry theirs even when actively making illegal threats. There’s definitely a principle on display here but it’s not the one you think.
- CMay 2mo ago
  > For example, there is a legal requirement that Congress authorize military action longer than 60 days. They’re advancing a theory that this is unnecessary or magically resets a timer anytime a cease fire is declared but that doesn’t make it lawful, any more than those guys saying they can only be tried in admiralty courts are lawful just because they don’t want to stop what they’re doing. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=lcp https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... "With minor variations in emphasis, basically all administrations since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution10 in 1973 have maintained that Con gress cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s commander-in-chief powers grounded in Article II of the Constitution." This is not new. It is not Republican or Democrat and pressing harder on this point prevents Iran or China from thinking they can simply wait 60 days. That would not be good for the military in harm's way or for encouraging negotiation. > We’re deterring China by losing to a much weaker opponent while simultaneously giving China a huge economic and political advantage? Giving Iran the ability to tax shipping for the first time and doing it in Chinese yuan is a deterrent in the same sense that you deter a dog by feeding it sausages. The US attacked Iran to achieve a set of goals. The strait was not really a primary part of the initial goals, but still it's a forced issue. They are losing so badly that their only remaining option is to harass their neighbors, which will further weaken Iran's position in the region for the next 50 years. China was sanction proofing itself so that it could have breathing room to take Taiwan, but attacking Russian oil infrastructure, attacking Venezuela and attacking Iran now has China drawing from its strategic oil reserves. The less reserves they have, the less sanction proofed they are. The less likely they are to make an attempt on Taiwan. Still, we're not attacking Iran only to deter China. Remember, Iran has attempted to assassinate the US president multiple times as well as Netanyahu on top of all the other awful things they've done over the past 50 decades. > I can see why you prefer to believe this but it sure is striking to see that politically-incorrect gun owners have their guns used to justify killing them while politically-correct ones are seen as having a right to carry theirs even when actively making illegal threats. Look, the number of people that die this way is so infinitely small that it is not a remotely relevant part of life. You are more likely to get struck by lightning or die in a commercial airliner accident. It is not some standard policy to simply go around shooting people who have guns and have some kind of political leaning. That would probably be a hate crime. I don't doubt mistakes happen, but the few people dying this way are generally violent and not innocent. People spread video clips and sound bites that intentionally encourage a certain interpretation in order to promote hate and distrust. It's almost always propaganda. This is not simply some Rublican/Democrat thing, this is propaganda and psychological manipulation funded by countries like Russia, China and Iran.

by CMay 2mo ago

acdha 2mo ago

> They are surrounded by lawyers and thinktanks to work through this, which is far from lawless This is so naive I struggle to believe you can possibly believe it. For example, there is a legal requirement that Congress authorize military action longer than 60 days. They’re advancing a theory that this is unnecessary or magically resets a timer anytime a cease fire is declared but that doesn’t make it lawful, any more than those guys saying they can only be tried in admiralty courts are lawful just because they don’t want to stop what they’re doing. > The reason we're doing this is to deter China and push back against what they're doing in the world. We’re deterring China by losing to a much weaker opponent while simultaneously giving China a huge economic and political advantage? Giving Iran the ability to tax shipping for the first time and doing it in Chinese yuan is a deterrent in the same sense that you deter a dog by feeding it sausages. > As for guns, generally if someone is shot while having a gun it's because of all the other things they did that led up to that moment. I can see why you prefer to believe this but it sure is striking to see that politically-incorrect gun owners have their guns used to justify killing them while politically-correct ones are seen as having a right to carry theirs even when actively making illegal threats. There’s definitely a principle on display here but it’s not the one you think.

CMay 2mo ago
> For example, there is a legal requirement that Congress authorize military action longer than 60 days. They’re advancing a theory that this is unnecessary or magically resets a timer anytime a cease fire is declared but that doesn’t make it lawful, any more than those guys saying they can only be tried in admiralty courts are lawful just because they don’t want to stop what they’re doing. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=lcp https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... "With minor variations in emphasis, basically all administrations since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution10 in 1973 have maintained that Con gress cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s commander-in-chief powers grounded in Article II of the Constitution." This is not new. It is not Republican or Democrat and pressing harder on this point prevents Iran or China from thinking they can simply wait 60 days. That would not be good for the military in harm's way or for encouraging negotiation. > We’re deterring China by losing to a much weaker opponent while simultaneously giving China a huge economic and political advantage? Giving Iran the ability to tax shipping for the first time and doing it in Chinese yuan is a deterrent in the same sense that you deter a dog by feeding it sausages. The US attacked Iran to achieve a set of goals. The strait was not really a primary part of the initial goals, but still it's a forced issue. They are losing so badly that their only remaining option is to harass their neighbors, which will further weaken Iran's position in the region for the next 50 years. China was sanction proofing itself so that it could have breathing room to take Taiwan, but attacking Russian oil infrastructure, attacking Venezuela and attacking Iran now has China drawing from its strategic oil reserves. The less reserves they have, the less sanction proofed they are. The less likely they are to make an attempt on Taiwan. Still, we're not attacking Iran only to deter China. Remember, Iran has attempted to assassinate the US president multiple times as well as Netanyahu on top of all the other awful things they've done over the past 50 decades. > I can see why you prefer to believe this but it sure is striking to see that politically-incorrect gun owners have their guns used to justify killing them while politically-correct ones are seen as having a right to carry theirs even when actively making illegal threats. Look, the number of people that die this way is so infinitely small that it is not a remotely relevant part of life. You are more likely to get struck by lightning or die in a commercial airliner accident. It is not some standard policy to simply go around shooting people who have guns and have some kind of political leaning. That would probably be a hate crime. I don't doubt mistakes happen, but the few people dying this way are generally violent and not innocent. People spread video clips and sound bites that intentionally encourage a certain interpretation in order to promote hate and distrust. It's almost always propaganda. This is not simply some Rublican/Democrat thing, this is propaganda and psychological manipulation funded by countries like Russia, China and Iran.