myata

So is it past the point of no return then? When partisan division reaches the level that the main interest and objective is to win and hold on the power as opposed to working for the interests of the society, what could be the way forward? Some parallels to Canada here, where the same effect is playing out though in a different way. Is it an inevitable result of the binary system? It naturally creates partisan division, and once it's past a certain point of break, the parties will be looking only to exploit the system to their advantage and for little else. It's not about the great words of the fathers or vile intents. It is the environment and the incentives that engender this behavior: naturally and predictably.

McCarthy exemplifies quite clearly the problem of GOP that is torn between the democracy and Constitution and pleasing the loudmouth lying mob. You can't have both, no. History showed that very clearly. Honesty and responsibility is the best way forward in all circumstances.

OK I'm not an expert in the US politics. But American people voted GOP to have a majority in the House and they expect both parties be responsible and mature to make the House work for them (the people), not itself! Because GOP has the majority the Speaker has to be GOP and the House has to work. So it could have played out as: Responsible Democrats and Republicans talk who they could work with on the agenda needed for the country, the citizens. They have a majority for a candidate in this case, he/she is elected and the House gets to working for the people. The Republicans say no, no we'll elect them just by ourselves no help needed and agree on a candidate who then has to accept the strings to the extreme margin. And it zips from there in the only possible direction. Question: was the former option even considered, by both parties? Or it's something no longer necessary? Because partisanship has become a thing in its own right, it controls the decisions of (purportedly) people's representatives, instead of representatives working for the people as they must and expected to?

Then its months of political chaos. Shutdown quite possible. What will the population think? Who will it hold responsible? Dems believe that it would work for them but chaos is never predictable. First time they tried partisanship, if backfired. Second time around it's bordering on irresponsibility and a blind, entrenched position. They did not have to vote against, just declare present. If a moderate Speaker was elected, it would be easier to build bridges and isolate the extreme crowd. But Dems leadership decided to play the partisan card. And so if it backfires again, there's no way they could escape responsibility for the outcome.

My point. Something is happening in the US politics in the last decade. Hard not to notice. Hardline duo emerges as the top contenders for the Speaker. McCarthy with all his downsides, was a relative moderate. With the help of Dems GOP just edged a bit further to the extreme. They think that it would work for them nicely. But it may just work the other way around.

Did I use that word? What is wrong with your reading idk. Massive and ubiquitous propaganda works on 80-90% of adults almost as well as mandates.

You forgot then. OK. Maybe the time to repeat the experience.

Or it could drag on for months creating a crisis and chaos environment in which, quite commonly, ugly surprises arise. One or the other. Let's bet.

You're saying it, I used different word. "Vaccines" for children were never recommended, not to mention, promoted and even: drummed (if the memory still serves you) in more mature and responsible jurisdictions.

Gleeful Democrats may be thinking that it works to their advantage. That's a delusion based on the same partisan zero-sum premise: if not them, then it has to us. But in reality it doesn't happen like this. Faced with an obstruction, a body of water finds a new channel and then washes everything in its path. Being blind and self-righteous never helped with complex problems.

It's more than the troubles in one party. Unfortunately, it looks like the entire democratic system is spinning out of control. How many "the firsts ever" we saw in just a matter of years, out of the centuries of democracy? Can it be good? A binary political system cannot be dominated by one faction of the society, even the one of the eternal goodness. But in reality, the likely outcome will be shakeups and big surprises. Not like it never happened. I would appeal to the Republicans of conscience and responsibility to the society; and to Democrats with reason and responsibility to observe and understand the direction in which the system is spinning. It may not be far down this path where all possibility of control, and return to normality will be lost. The signs are clear. There's no way to pretend we didn't see and understand them.

They could have said this the first time around, as in about two months of clinical trials it became clear that they could not protect against the spread. Who decided otherwise? For what reasons, any reasons? Why kids needed to be "vaccinated", in the view of possible risks to their health, without any known benefits? Until and unless we know "because we can" seems to be the natural explanation. And no one is responsible. Just doing the job.

He was kept under a tight lead by Republican officialdom and now he and his mob despises them as softies or even "traitors". The Capitol event showed where his real base is. Also he is developing extreme animosity to the justice system and judiciary. There's no way to predict what his presidency could be like now. Anyone who would choose to push the button for unpredictable jerk with clear authoritarian ambitions and admiration for dictator strongmen, for any reasons, as a savior or being bored with the establishment, can be playing with the fate. It happened exactly in this way before. Generally, a binary system produces this kind of figures in the landscape of steadily growing then becoming extreme, partisanship. In the setting where nothing changes, ever, some folks will begin looking for adventures and surprises. They may think it's only a game, like in "bread and circuses" game. Quite likely, it's only a matter of time.

You are being dishonest here. Saddam refused the inspections and nobody could tell for certain if he still had them or not at the time the decision was made. I did not support it, but it had a rationale, both ethical and legal. Putin's war is as clear example of a brutal, unprovoked aggression as one will ever know, theoretically. The connection is superficial. I'm not going to comment on this aspect here.

My thoughts exactly. Today is not a great day for the American democracy. Looks like Trampism is poisoning and contaminating the thinking not just of the Republicans but everybody. Why not show some adult responsibility? Why playing this childish revenge game to the last standing, that quite possibly will be someone none of the players expected? Overall, just another demonstration: partisanship in a binary zero-sum system is already creating risks for democracy. And it may very well paint the way to the end of it.

I fail to see any parallels here. One is as clear cut case of a brutal criminal aggression as it will ever get. Saddam made some historic claims in Kuwait. Hitler used a false flag attack as a pretext. Russia recognized territorial integrity of Ukraine in multiple treaties I can count a few off the top of my head. The Charter of UN prohibits aggression. There's nothing in common between these cases. Compare Ukraine to Hitler's attack on Poland or Saddam's on Kuwait there may be commonalities. I suspect the reason you're trying to connect them because you may have heard it somewhere. Where? What does it mean? Were it the same sources that called Putin - Hitler of today "genius", and Jong Un, a brutal totalitarian dictator, "very honorable"? Can one claim to defend "freedom" while petting and caving in to totalitarian dictator thugs? What kind of "freedom" could it be? It's all in the plain sight. See and read it for what you see and understand not the lies the mob that cares nothing about truth and freedom is peddling.

Iraq war isn't the same as Ukraine war. The word is the same. The meaning is vastly, lightyears apart. But you wouldn't know and notice. OK then, it's as simple as this: can an armed robber barge into your house, take what they like, beat, rape and kill someone on the way (Heaven forbid, but it's true in the situation that is being discussed, a matter of fact) and then the next house, if only, attention: they are strong enough, have a lot of guns. If you choose to pretend dumb, the answer has to be obvious: yes. If the police can arrest the robber then the robber can attack you. Same thing and complete moral equivalence. So yes, is it? All the millennia of the civilization for nothing, yes? But how could you get out of this obvious conundrum? Playing dumb is well, dumb. Or you'll have to admit that robbing and killing is wrong and needs to be stopped. So, which one? No, can't run away from the obvious.

Nice try, but it has nothing to do with Putin's brutal invasion. Operation of the coalition authorized by the UN in Iraq is a completely different topic, and only in Putin's stooges talking points the two are anyhow related. What do you not understand here? Why do you keep bringing it up? How a normal human being with a working brain couldn't get it? If you're ready to part with independent critical processing of information, of course it's your decision. There are consequences though, always. Germany learned at an enormous cost. Any number of sad people are trying to learn and remember on their own sad lessons. I only wish that the crowd that likes to repeat mindlessly tyrants and thugs agendas could have it their way, that they desire deeply in their strange minds - only in their own, alternative universe totally detached from ours. Love dictator thugs? Pet and kiss them, repeat their lies? Call them "geniuses" and "very honorable"? Sure. Have a dictator for yourself and no less that two or three generations. Crying? Asking for help? Why should anyone normal worry, you choose it yourself, consciously and voluntarily. You even were warned God knows how many times but insisted to have your heart's desire. Yes have it, all to yourself hope it'll make and keep you happy. It looks very much like this is the only way they could learn. And even then, far from assured.

You're getting too much of the lying mob's lies. This is your chance to retain your own brain. It will not last forever. Only because you're getting blind to the difference. Saddam had WMD and used them against his own people. He was under an obligation to allow the inspections and he violated it multiple times. Operation in Iraq was authorized by a UN resolution. Coalition never targeted civilians deliberately as Russia did multiple times and continues to do. War crimes were investigated and guilty brought to justice while Russia is run by war criminals, just like Nazi Germany. These are the facts. Don't go over the rails of sanity and reality with the pathologically lying mob. It may not be easy to come back.

Please read about the Iraq war yourself rather than giving attention to the lying mob and parroting their dumb and ridiculous lies. A false equivalence between UN-authorized operation and a brutal invasion of an independent country, in a blatant violation of every law and principle, including the Charter of the United Nation, is the dictator's favorite talking point. Would it surprise you (or anyone with own, working brain) that it caught like a fire among the lying crowd? And especially in the light of this: "That's a genius" (of Putin, a brutal fascist dictator) "Very honorable" (of Kim Yong Un, a brutal totalitarian dictator) Is there something they aren't telling you? Just look and think, for yourself. You were given a brain for a reason. Try to remember that.

59% of Americans supported military aid to Ukraine (June 2023, Reagan institute). The liars won't tell you that because they are prolific pathological liars not interested in the truth: only in getting to the power. Standing up to Hitlers of our time is the right thing to do. Hitlers ARE NOT "geniuses" and "very honorable" people, they are brutal and murderous often sadist, criminal thugs. In the world of any normal human being there is an enormous difference. The liars could not say that aloud and in public because that's what their lying Idol said, on the record. Standing up to Hitlers is the right thing to do not only out of the principles or basic human dignity but for very practical reasons as well: if we do nothing, Hitlers will come to us. As they have done before. Between humanity and an absolute abhorrent contraposition to it, there cannot be any compromises. The liars won't tell you that. They are not interested in any matters of principle: only in getting to power. These are patented, stamped and accomplished liars. They lie always, copiously and naturally because this is the only way to the power they know. And everyone has to know and remember, always, what happens when we listen to patented and accomplished liars. There will be no surprises.

Attention: the lying mob in action. No such references anywhere in the text of the OP. Lie blatantly without reservation, divide and create conflicts, run the wave of chaos. The lying mob's plan never changes.

True as well. The system they made and keep for themselves leaves very little space and virtually no incentives for real working solutions to complex problems of a modern society. Singing propaganda songs and throwing loads of public's money at useless but pretty posters is so much easier (fact) and does all they need there (another). Can't go against the entropy.

Exactly. The bureaucracy messed it up (as it messes up pretty much anything the difference is only in the severity, mildly mediocre or a total bust. So it has to be held responsible. Not me: no. Don't even begin that song of collective responsibility for your, single-handedly made and executed flaws and failures. You wanted to rule like the kings of old, with no checks none of controls and zero accountability? You have it, courtesy of the sleepy populace. But with it comes singular and attributed responsibility. Didn't know? Forgot? Your problem. Nothing to do with me. So go back to your board and call when you've figured it out.

It rubs me wrong way every time I hear it. It's only English (and some logic): race: a noun. Physical differences between humans is a fact of reality. Racial phenotype is one of the many, many physical factors. Again: it's a fact of physical reality. racial: adjective. As pertaining to the race (racial phenotype), a fact of physical reality. racialized (by the way, spell checker here doesn't recognize it, politically correctness flaw): passive voice, requires a subject. Racialized means that there is or was "racializer". Certainly, racial discrimination happened and was common, and not that long ago. It happens in some forms and cases now. But does it mean that it should have a permanent-lasting effect for like, eternity? Incorporated in the language and speech you're racialized so they have to be racializers? Well, we can try to see how it would work in this reality not just feel-goodie-leftie talk. France defeated Germany in WWI (a fact of history) so it was among the victorizers. Germany, victorized, obviously. Then in 1940 - 1944 France was victorized, following by another stretch of victorizing. And now, in this 21st century what should it be? Victorized or victorizers? Can be both? Should it? A saying goes, a fool can ask a question (easily and naturally, -m.) that a hundred of wise folk wouldn't answer. In Canada, it seems it has been adopted and raised to the level of public policy. And why wouldn't it - no this is not a rhetorical question, very practically and physically, what is there to prevent it, checks, controls, anything?