myata

From the outset I'm not arguing that Israel has to be exonerated for anything it does by the very fact of its existence as some of its ideologists want to imply. To me at least it certainly looks like some directions and elements of Israeli policy transgress the lines of the international law, such as for example spreading and encroaching settlements. These arguments apply specifically the events that followed the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023. They are as follows: 1. The primary and absolute responsibility of a democratic government is safety and security of its citizens. This responsibility is absolute and unconditional. 2. The obligation of proportional response is not formal and/or superficial. It is relative to the factual and real level of threat posed to the safety of a democratic state and its citizens. It follows that in situations where aggressors, terrorists, fascists have made the entire state and its citizens their hostage and use it/them to execute their criminal agendas, the entire state, or any of its subsystems can be rightfully considered an instrument of the aggression, and a legitimate target for the defensive response. No one can "order" democratic state to ignore some some threats or limit its defensive response against legitimate targets. Bombing Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII was not wrong. Such arguments and norms don't exist and cannot be defended. 3. Violations of the international, humanitarian, conduct of war and other laws committed during the defensive action can be prosecuted as necessary. But in no way can they imply or allege any formal or superficial limitations on the right of a democratic state to defend itself, by all means necessary against an existential threat.

Freedom of speech can only be stretched so far. These people spread the enemy's agenda willingly and knowingly, for money, assisting him in a very real and material way. Helpers and enablers of modern Hitlers - why and how, less? I don't know about charges but they should be known, widely and universally for what they do and who they are. What we do defines us. There can be no escapes or excuses.

Putin is an enemy of the free world: there's no question about that. He is an accused war criminal. Who are these people who were paid by the enemy to spread his propaganda, weaken and undermine the democracy and constitutional order - and are doing that willingly and consciously? What could be the proper term for this activity? Influencers were paid by Russia to interfere in the election and knew where the money were coming from.

And the question is then: who gets to decide? If this trend is allowed to run its course we'll end up with a bunch of old folk in fancy robes rolling the dice, reading coffee, stars or any other fancy way to decide, today we'll be reading it literally but tomorrow discover a hidden intent that they just couldn't formulate themselves. And would it be any new either? No way.

Just watch them propping Justin up in the next confidence vote but already as independent" and free" party. Can politics can be full of surprises

Too dumb to see and get the obvious? A willing and conscious helper of thugs? Or both - a dumb admirer of brutal thuggish power? Any other options, in this case?

The silliest of illusions is that this kind of travesty can just happen and then it'll go back to normal - the old normal. No way it would: it would be the new normal. How and why wouldn't it? And then someone some time will push it another notch down where? to Venezuela? Remember, we were already at a stolen election and violent protests. And what would be a notch or two down? Don't even dream!

Book is not a replacement nor alternative to the reality that is staring us in the eyes. That idea can also be dangerous.

Well it's a tough one. How could we figure our which one (or all of the above, plus genuine, natural attraction)?

The translation: there's nothing normal about that candidate; his cult knows it; and it has nothing of essence to say.

Every time someone, anyone is claiming the privilege and prerogative to read the intent that was not expressed explicitly, it's a symptom of at least one of the: - They consider the original creators inferior to themselves (they couldn't formulate the norm explicitly, in a clear and transparent language) - They seek the exclusive control over the reading and interpretation of the text. Either of the claims is plainly outlandish, and one can be particularly dangerous.

Between the two options: a closed group claiming exclusive access to the sacred texts, the right to read and interpret them, first claiming it should be read literally, letter by letter then turning around to find there something it obviously does not say (what "special circumstances", where is it written?); and citizens involved in maintaining their basic law via a responsible and involved process I would chose the reason-based one without much hesitation. Voodoo dancing around the fire in shamanic robes is the thing of the past. It has led to many problems every single time it was tried.

High profile conservative influencers were apparently duped by the Russian state media campaign. "US content creation company they were associated with had been provided with nearly $10m from Russian state media employees to publish videos with messages in favour of Moscow’s interests and agenda, including over the war in Ukraine". Now, there's a well-known liar who continues to spread and peddle Russian-inspired messages of "ending the war - on her terms" persistently and consistently: the latest episode only a few days back. The question, is he too dumb to see and understand who's using and playing him; or is he doing that consciously and deliberately? Could it be just a coincidence? International law and order themselves are at stake here. What if the thugs like Putin and Kim (whose cute buddies by the way?) are allowed to bring unbounded violence and lawlessness to anyone and whenever they like? This is what's at stake here, and nothing less. Is he too dumb; too full of himself to get that? Or would he agree with that?

Nothing like the reality, facts, objective truth exist for this herd as can be observed right here. History tells us very clearly what can happen when this sort of cults become eager and power hungry. We knew and we saw everything.

People have different motives to show their opinion in the polls but at certain time not too far away that choice will matter and could have far-reaching consequences. No one can pretend they couldn't know what it's about. No one, with a grain of intelligent thought and responsibility can pretend that it's "just another election, like any other". There's nothing normal about one of the candidates: he is prolific, pathological liar with no, zero, non-existent regard for democracy and the rule of law. That never happened before. Nothing like "just another election".

Every lie is only "humor" for them. What a sad and desperate bunch.

The last non-trivial amendment was passed in the 1970s. That was before the Internet, and at least two generations have grown since. With the Congress hopelessly divided there's little to no chance of future changes, even most needed ones. Dead brains won't see the reality the moment it begins to contradict their dogma. They'll strike their dead heads on the door frame or lie boldface and in the eyes. What else can be expected, when admitting the reality is not an option?

I would disagree that it's a matter of individual preferences. The problems are both real: the trend to close the circle where important or critical decisions are made can be dangerous. Without accountability and effective oversight, many examples where it led to bad consequences are known in history. On the other hand, granted, allowing layman populism fix any issues on the spot, can be risky as well. So should there be some balance between these extremes, where neither is allowed to dominate? Indeed, this is my opinion. Citizen oversight is needed everywhere, in every domain and office of democracy, as long as it lasts. There has to be a responsible, reasonable process for citizens to have their say in the constitutional matters as well. There's nothing new or radical in that, it's a standard practice in many modern democracies. And without it the system is incomplete and in my opinion, cannot be in principle.

So to round it up, there are several options to define and maintain current, with the state of the society a broad foundational system of guidelines and principles of a democratic system. One is to understand the statements as general guidelines that are interpreted according to the current and actual condition of the society. If new essential principles emerge, or their meaning changes to the point where earlier formulas become incorrect, imprecise or confusing, etc, amendments are made. This makes sense. Another is to interpret the text literally exactly as written and word for word. That option is possible, but it depends on the existence of an effective and functional update process. Basic rationality and sanity dictate that: would one want a precise, literal code that is not current or relevant anymore? The answer is quite obvious. And then there is a claim that is simply nonsensical and impossible: for the prerogative to read the intent behind the text, that existed at the time of creation. That would be sheer nonsense. No one can know, with any confidence the intent of another person that is not expressed explicitly even right now, forget decades and centuries back. The claims to that have to be deemed simply irrational: not much different from voodoo dancing and similar kind, really. A general law was made, its formula explicit and clear. It was applied to the circumstances at some specific moments and cases. Does it anyhow limit general applicability of the law as formulated only to those specific cases? Absurd. No fancy words, nor rituals can make the impossible plausible. So two options are possible and which one should apply should be decided by the people, not (unelected) priests in fancy robes. And the other one is sheer nonsense that has no ground in reason, rational and objective reality.

WTH? Referendums are wrong now? Where? Its a staple, normal and regular thing in many advanced democracies. Where are we heading in time, seriously? And who was saying that elitism was oh so wrong only a moment back? Just look where the folk-loving elites chastising agenda (ostensibly, can't be all about just elect me, can it?) will get you in a flash, if not watching closely. Amazing also how the same group that claims to love the holy texts exactly and literally as they were written suddenly claims the privilege to read in them something they aren't saying and change their obvious meaning. "Robbery is an offense" isn't it clear to anyone of a sound mind? No but wait! See, in the previous applications, only robbers with family names starting with "B, N and K" were convicted that should mean something! Does it mention anything about conditions and exceptions in the scripture, literally? No answer. A closed group that is bent on exclusive access to the Constitution and interpretation of its meaning. Priests, in the times of pharaohs. Unelected too. With no way for the public to decide what their Constitution should mean and how it should be read. Define elitism.

Are you backing out now from the literal idea? This is what it says, again: ""No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States..." I will not try to argue whether it applies to running for president that's an expert issue. But it does, explicitly mention Senators and Representatives in the House. It says just that right up there. Now those are elected, and the Congress can be involved only to overrule the ban. So yes, following your own words, the clause implies that the condition is determined via some due process; and only after that the Congress can intervene to overrule it. You have to follow what you preach, or no? Can you decide at last?

We have the facts to speak for themselves here: the last non-trivial amendment was passed in the early 70s. That's two generations ago, way before the Internet. However a closed group unelected as well, assuming the privilege to read and interpret the Constitution, put in their readings something that it doesn't say, or ignore what it says clearly and explicitly is a clear and real danger to the democracy. People need a working mechanism to ensure that their say can always be the final one; or it can be the first step to alienation then possibly, usurpation of power.

I did no such thing. You said that it has to be interpreted literally. Then reading the quoted clause literally, it's up to the election or other authorized offices to designate a candidate as such and exclude them from the ballot. Only after that the Congress can interfere to overrule the decision. This is what it says. Trump was not a president at the time of declaring his run, and president is in fact an officer under the United States ("This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”) If you read it literally you have to follow it word by word and literally. What escape will you try this time?

This is by the way a typical cultist position: it's based on no reason; no rational arguments but only on the dogma, I have to have my way because I think that it's the only right one. It has to be literal! - OK. Where does it mention "specific events"? No. Is there any reference to 1861, in the text? Nope. Any mentioning of Congress being involved before the decision of exclusion is made? None. Would it be anything but "unwise" to make provisions in the Constitution that apply only to one specific event in the past? What do you think? No, but I have to have my way! Exclusionism, a claim to the exclusive right to own and interpret the scripture is nothing new in human history. And in a democracy, a clear sign of degradation and erosion of principles.

Democracy is not the mob rule: laws, checks and balances, rules and institutes have to exist and be functional. But it's not a pharaoh system either, run by a caste of priests responsible to nobody. No one should own the final right to read the Constitution and decide what it means other than the people. On the matters of importance, which can be identified by the SC or alternatively, so that a manifestation of the people's will could never be prevented, via a signature process. A public discussion within a mandated term follows, then the matter is decided by the public vote. Note, this relates to interpretation and overrules all earlier decisions based on the earlier ones but not counted as a formal amendment, that has the process of its own. The adopted interpretation stands until superseded by a related amendment or another interpretation. This could be a more general way to return democratic politics to adult, reasonable and responsible dialogue of the citizens from the partisan circus today. And what could be wrong with that?