The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[Zip City]

Oversimplification of the day: Israel v. Palestine is a shit show and there may not be any good guys in this fight. Add on top of that the fact that no one can speak rationally on the matter, and I don't know how anything good comes from it

[brettac1]

Oversimplification of the day: Israel v. Palestine is a shit show and there may not be any good guys in this fight. Add on top of that the fact that no one can speak rationally on the matter, and I don't know how anything good comes from it

It's an absolute nightmare and it's only just begun. Netanyahu finally gets to carry out the ethnic cleansing he has always lusted after, as the rest of the world politely watches on.

[beantownbubba]

Oversimplification of the day: Israel v. Palestine is a shit show and there may not be any good guys in this fight. Add on top of that the fact that no one can speak rationally on the matter, and I don't know how anything good comes from it

It's an absolute nightmare and it's only just begun. Netanyahu finally gets to carry out the ethnic cleansing he has always lusted after, as the rest of the world politely watches on.

That may be what happens eventually. Or it may not. It's certainly not what's happening now.

[beantownbubba]

Oversimplification of the day: Israel v. Palestine is a shit show and there may not be any good guys in this fight. Add on top of that the fact that no one can speak rationally on the matter, and I don't know how anything good comes from it

It's an absolute nightmare and it's only just begun. Netanyahu finally gets to carry out the ethnic cleansing he has always lusted after, as the rest of the world politely watches on.

Actually there is some rational stuff out there but one has to look long and hard to find it.

In thinking about this hugely complex and very awful set of circumstances/issues I think it is important to note that there is something of a consensus (or maybe a significant plurality) at least in the West that Hamas carried out its raid knowing what the consequences were likely to be and inviting them. Can I say with certainty that's true? Nope. But some of the most respected commentators on this decades (centuries?) long mess believe it. They cite one or both of the following reasons: Hamas (and its Iranian backers) were desperate to break up the much rumored about but not final Saudi-Israel deal and that mission has already been accomplished. Or perhaps Hamas wanted to invite an extreme reaction by Israel in order to generate worldwide sympathy and a shift in world opinion in their favor and/or to further divide Israel politically. Hmmm, maybe that's three reasons, I'm not sure, but whatever. In plain English, any of those theories boil down to Hamas intentionally bringing down calamity on its own people, the ones it claims to represent.

It also seems salient that only one side officially, insistently and determinedly denies the right of the other side to exist and has an official policy of exterminating that side.

If one gives any credence to that analysis of Hamas's "strategy" and Hamas's official policy (and one absolutely has to give credence to the latter, it's Hamas's long time written declaration) it becomes a lot harder to claim equivalence between Israel and Hamas. Before we go off on a tangent, I am not saying that one atrocity justifies another. I am saying that if one wants to comment on the subject, one ought to have a reasonable and justifiable proposed alternative for how Israel should proceed. By definition, it is unreasonable and unjustifiable to suggest that Israel negotiate with Hamas because Israel in no moral, legal or ethical way should be required to negotiate with a political opponent whose avowed policy and essential reason for being is the actual destruction of Israel and the elimination of the Jewish people. Rock? Meet hard place.

Also, let's compare and contrast Gaza w/ the West Bank which is at least nominally run by the Palestinian Authority (not Hamas). The PA has in fact acknowledged Israel's right to exist and has disavowed any intention to annihilate the Jewish people. Therefore, imho Israel's absurd and horrible current policies and actions on the West Bank are unjustifiable and unacceptable and Israel needs to figure out another way.

For years, I essentially refused to think about the Middle East, basically saying "a plague on both their houses." But guess what? That didn't work and it won't work. (To be clear, I'm not saying that my opinions/actions/inaction have any impact at all, only that my viewpoint was fairly common and did work its way into the outlook/policies of many more important or influential actors).

[brettac1]

There are also theories that Netanyahu had knowledge beforehand and essentially allowed the attack to happen as a gamble to strengthen his own position.

Editing for clarity of that thought. It has seemingly backfired in regards to his popularity, but perhaps not in regards to what sorts of actions he may be able to carry out in retaliation.

[John A Arkansawyer]

There are also theories that Netanyahu had knowledge beforehand and essentially allowed the attack to happen as a gamble to strengthen his own position.

Netanyahu is currently blamed for the attack by eighty-some percent of the Israeli population. After the war is over, if there's still a functioning world civilization, his career is over. I don't see how he could not have foreseen such an outcome.

[beantownbubba]

There are also theories that Netanyahu had knowledge beforehand and essentially allowed the attack to happen as a gamble to strengthen his own position.

Netanyahu is currently blamed for the attack by eighty-some percent of the Israeli population. After the war is over, if there's still a functioning world civilization, his career is over. I don't see how he could not have foreseen such an outcome.

Once again, none of us can really know but I gotta think JohnA is right. A survivalist political cat like Bibi with multiple lives has to have enough of his finger on enough of the pulse of his people to know that he would be blamed for a catastrophe of the magnitude that occurred. Was he maybe expecting something smaller? Who knows?

I also observe that "the leader knew and wanted it to happen" is one of the older more popular more pliable conspiracy theories out there, including FDR allegedly knowing about Pearl Harbor. The thing about all these theories including the one about Bibi is that if the leader knows, then at least a few other officials know because the leader gets his info from somewhere. Can you imagine any highly placed figure in the IDF, Shin Bet or Mossad putting up w/ Netanyahu purposely allowing that attack to occur? I literally can't. It doesn't compute.

[jr29]

I see that you sort of answered my question while I was writing it, but I don't understand why voting against McCarthy was "petty;" at this point in the political lifecycle of this country, what advantage is there to potentially being seen as "the adults in the room;" and, ultimately, what would have been "adult" about voting for McCarthy? You say that even as he was, he was the "best available" but if the goal is to actually accomplish something rather than flounder around from crisis to crisis without resolution at the whim and mercy of a small band of nuts, how/why was McCarthy the best available?

Well, he did work with Dems some. There were reasons the far-right wanted him out.
I'd have been all ears if the Dems had floated a reasonable alternative. There are some fairly moderate Republicans, but as far as I know the Dems were only interested in Jeffries as speaker. Instead of striking a deal with a few moderates they nominated Jeffries which was never going to happen and they knew it.
There is no way, zero chance, that 200+ Democrats voted their conscience in this case. They voted for the sake of a political win. They may get the win, but I don't think it is good for the country.

I really hope that in a year or two I can look back and say the Dems were playing chess while my stupid ass was playing checkers. Even if that happens I don't think I'll agree with the way they handled it.

I agree with you, but not, lol. Yes, I agree the Dems were making a political calculation and that nominating Jeffries was not a serious attempt to have him elected. But again, I'm not sure about what's wrong w/ the calculation they made or what other calculation was sensible and realistic.

I agree that the Dems could have backed a moderate Republican, but who? I don't recall any moderate names even being floated publicly much less throwing their hat(s) into the ring. I agree, if the Dems did not even have those kinds of discussions w/ possible candidates, shame on them. But I find it hard to believe that they did not at least put out feelers/have preliminary discussions. Admittedly I don't know for a fact that they did, but if they didn't, yeah, I'd have a problem with that.

Jeffries did send that letter offering and urging bipartisan cooperation and a path forward, which I thought at the moment might have been cover or an opening for some more moderate Republican alternative emerging, but that didn't happen. I can't say how seriously that letter was intended, though it seemed to me to be a legit offer/olive branch. Bottom line, though, I'm not sure how else things could have played out given the hands all relevant parties were dealt.

Also consider the calculation of any Republican moderate who thought s/he had a chance to win the Speakership w/ Democratic votes: That seems like it would have been the most Pyrrhic victory ever, winning the title and being the powerless butt of endless power plays, subject to endless public and private humiliations a la McCarthy but worse. Could a moderate Republican bringing along, say, 20 other Republicans, have formed an actual governing coalition w/ the Dems? That's literally possible but I can't see anyone making those calculations and thinking that it could possibly work in real time in real life.

McCarthy had indeed worked with the Dems on the resolution of the latest "debt ceiling crisis" and the most recent continuing resolution. But it was the immediate follow up to the CR that led to his demise, not only because of Republican criticism of him working with the Dems but also because McC reneged on the budget deal he made w/ Biden at the time of the debt ceiling deal and made clear that working with Dems going forward was off the table.

All that said, if Jordan as Speaker was the foreseeable outcome of McC being voted out, then the Dems did miscalculate no matter how weak or distasteful continuing w/ McCarthy might have been. But in real time I do not think that could have realistically been anticipated.

Ha. I get it. This thing reminds me of something my mother in law says, which I believe she heard somewhere else, "there's no right or wrong decision, only the decision you make." They may be making a good decision, but it's not what I wanted to see them do and I don't think it's what I'd do if I woke up in their position.

[John A Arkansawyer]

I also observe that "the leader knew and wanted it to happen" is one of the older more popular more pliable conspiracy theories out there, including FDR allegedly knowing about Pearl Harbor.

I myself don't believe it, but the FDR one is much more credible, since he worked his tail off getting the United States into WW II, and since casualties were almost all soldiers, who've taken the king's shilling and signed up to die for their country.

[Zip City]

BTB, my statement about "no one can speak rationally on the matter" mostly has to do with the immediate, knee-jerk reaction to call people anti-Semitic or islamaphobic when criticizing one side or the other. "Jews vs. Muslims" is too emotional an issue. This is "Government A vs. Government B". Anyone who holds up one side over the other is blinded by emotion.

And no, I'm not taking a "both sides" argument that equates the two sides. I'm simply saying that atrocities are being committed on both sides.

[beantownbubba]

BTB, my statement about "no one can speak rationally on the matter" mostly has to do with the immediate, knee-jerk reaction to call people anti-Semitic or islamaphobic when criticizing one side or the other. "Jews vs. Muslims" is too emotional an issue. This is "Government A vs. Government B". Anyone who holds up one side over the other is blinded by emotion.

And no, I'm not taking a "both sides" argument that equates the two sides. I'm simply saying that atrocities are being committed on both sides.

Oh, I wasn't arguing w/ you on the first point, more trying to be encouraging to keep looking because there is stuff worth reading (and presumably listening to but I don't generally listen to podcasts) out there. And you're right the "baseline" especially the early baseline was far from rational and much of what one sees still is. Nature of this particular beast, unfortunately.

Yes, atrocities have been committed on both sides and that is unbelievably sad and discouraging (about finding a way out). I am as you might imagine sensitive to the "equivalence argument" so I admittedly do try to get out in front of that one. Apologies if in doing so I overstated your position which I think I did (and do) understand.

John A, IIRC, when I was in college the general consensus was that FDR did not know. I believe that has changed and things have moved somewhat in the other direction although I don't know how far and haven't looked at the issue in a long time. But for purposes here, the rumor (i.e. conspiracy theory) was out there well before any facts that supported it.

[beantownbubba]

Ha. I get it. This thing reminds me of something my mother in law says, which I believe she heard somewhere else, "there's no right or wrong decision, only the decision you make." They may be making a good decision, but it's not what I wanted to see them do and I don't think it's what I'd do if I woke up in their position.

OK, I'd say we've officially beaten this horse dead. Even so, I'd be curious to know what you would have done if you feel like discussing it further. I promise not to post any responses based on reasonableness or foreseeability lol. If you can expand the "box" I'm in on this, I'd love to read about it.

[jr29]

Ha. I get it. This thing reminds me of something my mother in law says, which I believe she heard somewhere else, "there's no right or wrong decision, only the decision you make." They may be making a good decision, but it's not what I wanted to see them do and I don't think it's what I'd do if I woke up in their position.

OK, I'd say we've officially beaten this horse dead. Even so, I'd be curious to know what you would have done if you feel like discussing it further. I promise not to post any responses based on reasonableness or foreseeability lol. If you can expand the "box" I'm in on this, I'd love to read about it.

We're all good. Most things political are beaten to death.
What I'd have done....
1. Just vote for McCarthy to avoid chaos. That's the easiest thing.
2. Be outspoken in potential support of a moderate/compromise speaker in exchange for a more centrist/bipartisan approach. Go to the press and say "to move things forward I am willing to support "fill in the blank Republican" for speaker. Ken Buck, Lawler from NY....someone. If none of those folks are interested or if they can't get any other Republican support I/Dems could say "hey, we're trying to work something out, but Republicans aren't interested". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way that could work out is that the compromise candidate becomes speaker then continues to operate like McCarthy. Dems could say "we came to the bargaining table in good faith and supported "fill in the blank". Now "fill in the blank" has betrayed the House and the country". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way it could work out is the compromise speaker actually operates as such and the House works more like it did pre-Newt Gingrich.

[beantownbubba]

We're all good. Most things political are beaten to death.
What I'd have done....

Really appreciate your taking the time and making the effort. Thanks.

I remain unsure whether voting for McCarthy would have been the best course of action but to the extent we differ on that I think it's pretty much based on our different views on the value or likely consequences of keeping McCarthy as speaker.

Your other thoughts make sense to me and as I alluded to earlier, I feel like I was being too narrowminded by being too quick to dismiss possible alternatives.

[brettac1]

BTB, my statement about "no one can speak rationally on the matter" mostly has to do with the immediate, knee-jerk reaction to call people anti-Semitic or islamaphobic when criticizing one side or the other. "Jews vs. Muslims" is too emotional an issue. This is "Government A vs. Government B". Anyone who holds up one side over the other is blinded by emotion.

And no, I'm not taking a "both sides" argument that equates the two sides. I'm simply saying that atrocities are being committed on both sides.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-ad ... 897ab5c8a6

[beantownbubba]

BTB, my statement about "no one can speak rationally on the matter" mostly has to do with the immediate, knee-jerk reaction to call people anti-Semitic or islamaphobic when criticizing one side or the other. "Jews vs. Muslims" is too emotional an issue. This is "Government A vs. Government B". Anyone who holds up one side over the other is blinded by emotion.

And no, I'm not taking a "both sides" argument that equates the two sides. I'm simply saying that atrocities are being committed on both sides.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-ad ... 897ab5c8a6

I have no idea what goes on in the halls of power, but this does not seem to be at all consistent with what the US govt is actually doing and saying.

Besides, my response to any government official who is too intimidated to speak their truth to the appropriate people at the appropriate times is "resign." Or maybe "fuck you." Either way I'm sick of hearing about elite people in responsible positions saying they knew better but they were too scared to say or do anything about it or whining about "the culture" that made speaking up difficult. Why the fuck do you think they pay you the big bucks? See, e.g., primarily but by no means exclusively Robert McNamara whose cowardice cost untold US and VIetnamese (to say nothing of Cambodians, Laotians and others) lives and whose book trying to justify his inaction is an abomination.*

*I admit that I could not finish it.

[beantownbubba]

my response to any government official who is too intimidated to speak their truth to the appropriate people at the appropriate times is "resign."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/us/s ... Position=1

[beantownbubba]

Speaking of rational, I highly recommend this column. Speaking of the wide range of opinions from rational to irrational I recommend reading at least the beginning portion of the comments, which to me illustrate that even a whole bunch of apparently intelligent, reasonably well informed and reasonably rational human beings cannot begin to bridge the oceans that divide the sides in this terrible conflict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... _headlines

[John A Arkansawyer]

Perhaps the fever has broken and the House Republicans are able to face reality now:

Jordan is no longer nominee for House speaker after a secret vote

[beantownbubba]

Perhaps the fever has broken and the House Republicans are able to face reality now:

Jordan is no longer nominee for House speaker after a secret vote

Well, something has happened for sure. But exactly what and exactly what it means is a bit hard to pin down.

The Republican Party lacks both a widely respected leader and a widely feared leader (some would nominate Trump for the latter role, but consider his ineffective endorsement of Jordan for Speaker).* In their absence, who do they rally around and how do they do it? The "moderates" are feeling newly powerful but at the end of the day there are no more of them (and probably fewer) than there are members of the Freedom Caucus. If they cancel out, where does that leave the Party? Will one outplay the other? Which one in what way(s)?

A couple of months ago I might have said that Mitch McConnell as a widely respected power broker and behind the scenes manipulator might have stepped in and put his prestige behind a selected candidate or "faction." But not only does he seem unwilling to do this (probably smartly) but I'm not sure he has that kind of standing anymore. This is exactly the moment where a Mitt Romney would normally step up but just writing that is enough to understand how absurd that thought is. Which of course is just another way of saying that the GOP is in a seriously fucked up state.

And don't forget that even though they will never say it publicly a certain portion of the GOP House is kind of happy about the way things are because they really are in it to destroy it, not to fix it or to actually accomplish anything of substance.

*Also consider the impact on Trump and the people he seeks to influence and control of the latest of his codefendants to flip. Trump is in serious, serious trouble and if there's one skill politicians have it is being able to smell blood in the water.

[beantownbubba]

I will not argue with anyone who says that Tom Friedman is a bit of a blowhard and can be hard to take at times. But he does know whereof he speaks, and he speaks quite well here and I recommend listening or reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/opin ... 029039208a

[beantownbubba]

PS One of the best things about Friedman's comments above is his emphasis on the West Bank and the need to stop the settlement craziness. Everyone is of course focused on Gaza right now for good reasons, but imho the key to any workable resolution is the West Bank and stopping the settlement movement is the key to getting the West Bank back on track.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Well, something has happened for sure. But exactly what and exactly what it means is a bit hard to pin down.

I'm sure enough to say it means there'll be a Speaker within a week. I'm pretty sure it all still means Candidate Trump. That probably also increases the likelihood of a serious third candidate, unfortunately.

[beantownbubba]

I'm sure enough to say it means there'll be a Speaker within a week.

Bold.

[John A Arkansawyer]

I'm sure enough to say it means there'll be a Speaker within a week.

Bold.

Unaccountability will do that.

[beantownbubba]

Down goes Emmer! Down goes Emmer! I guess I never thought about what comes after tragedy and farce. I guess we're gonna find out.

I know, I know, it's just pointless to rage against the inevitable and irrational but still, it frosts me when Trump says shit like Emmer "didn't understand the value of my endorsement" and it gets reported straight, w/out comment by the media,despite Trump's endorsement of Jim Jordan not delivering squat for Jordan a mere 4 days ago.

[beantownbubba]

OK people. Here's an example of why all things Israel/Palestinians/Gaza are so fucked up and so incapable of being discussed rationally much less moved on to a better, more hopeful path. In the way of social media, this landed among my texts this morning:

"I'm sure you all have friends who are asking questions, you can send them this :
1)Before the modern state of Israel there was the British mandate, Not a Palestinian state .
2) Before the British mandate there was the ottoman empire, Not a Palestinian state .
3) Before the ottoman empire there was the Islamic mamluk sultanate of Egypt, Not a Palestinian state .
4)Before the Islamic mamluk sultanate of Egypt there was the ayyubid dynasty, Not a Palestinian state .Godfrey of bouillon conquered it in 1099.
5) Before the ayyubid dynasty there was the christian kingdom of Jerusalem, Not a Palestinian state .
6) Before the christian kingdom of Jerusalem there was the Fatimid caliphate, Not a Palestinian state .
7) Before the Fatimid caliphate there was the byzantine empire, Not a Palestinian state .
Before the byzantine empire there was the Roman empire, Not a Palestinian state .
9) Before the Roman empire there was the hasmonean dynasty, Not a Palestinian state .
10)Before the hasmonean dynasty there was the Seleucid empire, Not a Palestinian state .
11) Before the Seleucid empire there was the empire of Alexander the 3rd of Macedon, Not a Palestinian state .
12) Before the empire of Alexander the 3rd of Macedon there was the Persian empire, Not a Palestinian state .
13) Before the Persian empire there was the Babylonian empire, Not a Palestinian state .
14) Before the Babylonian empire there was the kingdoms of Israel and Judea, Not a Palestinian state .
15) Before the kingdoms of Israel and Judea there was the kingdom of Israel, Not a Palestinian state .
16) Before the kingdom of Israel there was the theocracy of the 12 tribes of Israel, Not a Palestinian state .
17) Before the theocracy of the 12 tribes of Israel there was the individual state of Canaan, Not a Palestinian state .
In fact in this corner of the earth there was everything but a Palestinian state!"

I know some of this history and I looked up the rest and it's basically accurate though of course historians still aren't sure about some of the details about the ancient stuff. But even if not exactly correct, it is directionally or substantively accurate, and it supports the statement/conclusion that there was never a Palestinian state in the land now known as Israel, whatever borders one chooses to impose on one's personal understanding of "Israel." So, here's a statement this is historically accurate and which is sending a very specific message which sounds essentially logical, rational and analytical. But the problem is that this recitation of history and the implied conclusion one is supposed to draw from it misses the major point(s) entirely. Completely. Totally.

Just for starters, I have never heard anybody of any substance claim that there was a pre-existing Palestinian state prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel so the argument is something of a "straw man" from the get go. Most often, the essential claim is that there were Palestinian people living on those lands and that some were killed and many more evicted, mostly without compensation at the time of modern Israel's founding. And that's true. But whatever claims or implications one wants to draw from that true statement, trying to analyze the issue in terms of "prior rights" or geography from either side's perspective misses the essential point which is that there are millions and millions of people crowded into a ridiculously small space, much of which is desert or otherwise inhospitable and that one set of those people hold longstanding deep seated highly emotional beliefs and hatreds and grievances against the other, and vice versa. So if one assumes (with varying degrees of confidence depending on the day or hour) that the genocide of one side or the other is not an acceptable solution, how are we going to resolve the very real, very human problem that exists on the ground?

This sort of "historical" reasoning or mindset is just not helpful and every time anyone on either side makes an argument of this kind they just set back the cause of a lasting peaceful and secure solution that will greatly aid the cause of stability and human happiness not just in the immediate area but in the entire region.

[beantownbubba]

What I'd have done....
1. Just vote for McCarthy to avoid chaos. That's the easiest thing.
2. Be outspoken in potential support of a moderate/compromise speaker in exchange for a more centrist/bipartisan approach. Go to the press and say "to move things forward I am willing to support "fill in the blank Republican" for speaker. Ken Buck, Lawler from NY....someone. If none of those folks are interested or if they can't get any other Republican support I/Dems could say "hey, we're trying to work something out, but Republicans aren't interested". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way that could work out is that the compromise candidate becomes speaker then continues to operate like McCarthy. Dems could say "we came to the bargaining table in good faith and supported "fill in the blank". Now "fill in the blank" has betrayed the House and the country". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way it could work out is the compromise speaker actually operates as such and the House works more like it did pre-Newt Gingrich.

Just for yucks, I had a very long conversation today with an old and dear friend I had not spoken to in months. When the talk turned to Congress, he said what you said, 100% as to substance and a lot of it in almost identical language. We didn't convince each other, either.

[John A Arkansawyer]

How are we going to resolve the very real, very human problem that exists on the ground?

Time. Ideally time and love. That's probably asking too much. More like time and weariness and the secular miracle of two sides willing to negotiate in good faith at the same time. It's not much, but it's what I've got.

[beantownbubba]

What I'd have done....
1. Just vote for McCarthy to avoid chaos. That's the easiest thing.
2. Be outspoken in potential support of a moderate/compromise speaker in exchange for a more centrist/bipartisan approach. Go to the press and say "to move things forward I am willing to support "fill in the blank Republican" for speaker. Ken Buck, Lawler from NY....someone. If none of those folks are interested or if they can't get any other Republican support I/Dems could say "hey, we're trying to work something out, but Republicans aren't interested". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way that could work out is that the compromise candidate becomes speaker then continues to operate like McCarthy. Dems could say "we came to the bargaining table in good faith and supported "fill in the blank". Now "fill in the blank" has betrayed the House and the country". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way it could work out is the compromise speaker actually operates as such and the House works more like it did pre-Newt Gingrich.

Just for yucks, I had a very long conversation today with an old and dear friend I had not spoken to in months. When the talk turned to Congress, he said what you said, 100% as to substance and a lot of it in almost identical language. We didn't convince each other, either.

More counties heard from:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... pinions_pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... p_opinions