Cycling UK Forum

Pebble wrote: 26 Oct 2024, 10:44am On one bright note he will let Israel sort out Hamas, Houtis & Hezbolah. and hopefully shut Iran up.

On this point alone I beg to differ, you can't defeat terrorism militarily

Stradageek wrote: 26 Oct 2024, 7:48pm

Pebble wrote: 26 Oct 2024, 10:44am On one bright note he will let Israel sort out Hamas, Houtis & Hezbolah. and hopefully shut Iran up.

On this point alone I beg to differ, you can't defeat terrorism militarily

Is that terrorists hamas, houtis, Hezbollah or IDF? Who is the worst??

Israeli actions have ensured that pretty much every Gazan and very many Lebanese will be "terrorists" for at least 2 generations. Guess that's why IDF has to try to pursue current genocide to ultimate solution. They may well succeed in Gaza, Lebanon more difficult.

I suspect that was the case long before the recent troubles, Israel are surrounded by nations who hate everything about them, they want them gone, from the river to the sea as they say

There is no solution out there, they will be slaughtering each other for eternity. If Israel don't defend themselves with great brutality, they themselves will be stamped out of existence.

It is Iran that needs sorting out, but we can't do that as it might affect oil prices, can't have that, could slow down global warming, a path we are hell bent in following.

I noticed the title of this thread seems to suggest that Trump lies frequently without establishing the premise, which may unintentionally create a "loaded question" effect.

This is a common type of logical fallacy where a question assumes something not yet proven or accepted by everyone.

It can be compared to asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" where any answer agrees with the original assumption.

Perhaps rephrasing the question to focus on specific actions or statements could make for a more balanced discussion, encouraging everyone to share perspectives without any presupposed judgment. Just thought I'd add this as a way to keep the conversation open and fair.

Pebble wrote: 27 Oct 2024, 12:53am I suspect that was the case long before the recent troubles, Israel are surrounded by nations who hate everything about them, they want them gone, from the river to the sea as they say

There is no solution out there, they will be slaughtering each other for eternity. If Israel don't defend themselves with great brutality, they themselves will be stamped out of existence.

The nearest analogy to the Israeli approach is what the Americans did to the Native Indian population, settler colonialism and genocide.

The 'great brutality' approach has yielded nothing but war and suffering since 1947 and this alone is why the more radical palestinians want the Israelis gone.

The majority of the palestinians would happily settle for a one state solution, it worked for many hundreds of years previously.

To put it all in context I'll quote Noam Chomsky, a Jewish American.

"The state system in Europe which was finally sort of established in 1945, is as a result of savage wars and murders and attrocities going back hundreds and hundreds of years. In fact the main reason why the plague of European civilization was able to spread all over the world in the past 500 years is that the Europeans were just a lot more vicious and savage than anyone else, because they had had a lot more practice murdering one another - so when it came to other places, they knew how to do it and were very good at it.

Israel is just as ugly a state as any other state. The only difference is that Israel has a fabricated image in the USA - it's regarded as having some unique moral quality, and there's all sorts of imagery about purity of arms and high noble intent and so on. It's complete mythology, just pure fabrication: Israel's a country like any other country and we should recognise that and stop the nonsense. To talk about legitimacy is ridiculous - the word doesn't apply, to their history or anyone else's"

PS written in 1990

Manc33 wrote: 27 Oct 2024, 1:31am I noticed the title of this thread seems to suggest that Trump lies frequently without establishing the premise, which may unintentionally create a "loaded question" effect.

This is a common type of logical fallacy where a question assumes something not yet proven or accepted by everyone.

It can be compared to asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" where any answer agrees with the original assumption.

Perhaps rephrasing the question to focus on specific actions or statements could make for a more balanced discussion, encouraging everyone to share perspectives without any presupposed judgment. Just thought I'd add this as a way to keep the conversation open and fair.

OTOH the established truth* is indeed the premise in the title, which is inviting us to explore the reasons for it.

Truth is (see what I did there), he is treated differently to any other candidate in history, with his lies, distortions, wild ramblings, bizarre segues, criminality and much else discounted and ignored by a large proportion of US voters. I think the 'why?' of this is a much more interesting question.

*https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 90285.html (amongst many others)

I half-heard him on the radio news this morning:

was he really claiming that Kamala's nomination is against the rulez?(of course there wasn't time to cover which rules ... )
Anyone know any more about this?

It might be about this:

"Is replacing Joe Biden on the ticket ‘unlawful’? Election law experts say it’s not.":
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2 ... joe-biden/

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: 28 Oct 2024, 12:32pm It might be about this:

"Is replacing Joe Biden on the ticket ‘unlawful’? Election law experts say it’s not.":
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2 ... joe-biden/

Jonathan

Thanks.

But google isn't finding anything from speeches made over the weekend, so maybe that was a fuss back in July which has died down. Dunno ...

EDIT: while I'm here, I'd like to note some Trump speech quotes from the weekend that do illustrate the kind of ..,. "character" we are dealing with here:

The 78-year-old businessman -- the first major presidential candidate in US history to be a convicted felon and subject of multiple ongoing court cases -- said former California prosecutor Harris, 59, is “dumb.”

“Joe Biden became mentally impaired. Kamala was born that way. She was born that way. And if you think about it, only a mentally disabled person could have allowed this to happen to our country,” he said.

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/unit ... migration-

I've wondered for sometime why anyone would want Trump as their president,the man is a full on fascist a thoroughly disgusting human being who should have no place in power,and the GOP have a lot to answer for allowing that to happen.

Then the penny dropped,it's simple,enough US citizens actually like fascism and to have a fascist such as him as their leader,much as enough Germans did in the 1930s.
Worryingly they like the idea of division,civil unrest,the othering of,coloured,GAY,Trans,etc people of the "wrong" religion who don't fit their narrow myopic world view,the limiting of women's rights,etc,etc and they will do anything to see that happen,again much like mid 20ct Germany did.A country where lies are truth and truth is lies.
The US and the world teeters on the edge......

Manc33 wrote: 27 Oct 2024, 1:31am I noticed the title of this thread seems to suggest that Trump lies frequently without establishing the premise, which may unintentionally create a "loaded question" effect.

This is a common type of logical fallacy where a question assumes something not yet proven or accepted by everyone.

It can be compared to asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" where any answer agrees with the original assumption.

Perhaps rephrasing the question to focus on specific actions or statements could make for a more balanced discussion, encouraging everyone to share perspectives without any presupposed judgment. Just thought I'd add this as a way to keep the conversation open and fair.

I greatly prefer Subjects that name the topic to those that promote a view. The former stand up much better as the discussion... develops.

It is possible to change the Subject in your own responses. ; - )

Jonathan

Pebble wrote: 27 Oct 2024, 12:53am I suspect that was the case long before the recent troubles, Israel are surrounded by nations who hate everything about them, they want them gone, from the river to the sea as they say

There is no solution out there, they will be slaughtering each other for eternity. If Israel don't defend themselves with great brutality, they themselves will be stamped out of existence.

It is Iran that needs sorting out, but we can't do that as it might affect oil prices, can't have that, could slow down global warming, a path we are hell bent in following.

Off topic but the river to the sea is a phrase used by Israelis too over the years. It also used by the proponents of single state democratic for both Jewish and Palestinian Arab citizens.

To summarise this phrase has been used by groups wanting the end to the Jewish state, the end of Palestinians in the former Mandate Palestine land and a single state with both groups living together democratically with equal rights in safety. The only group for whom it can't be used by are the two state supporters obviously.

So as a phrase it does not necessarily mean they're calling for the ethnic cleansing or genocide of the other but it might mean that depending on who is using it. Imho the more right wing and militant Israeli zionists are as distasteful as hamas in their use of the phrase. Unfortunately those ppl are in Netanyahu government with the IDF to carry out their beliefs.

Does trump lie or is he deluded and just say what comes out of his brain's creative processes?

Then the penny dropped, it's simple,enough US citizens actually like fascism and to have a fascist such as him as their leader, much as enough Germans did in the 1930s.

Yes, and not just in the USA, everywhere, at all times, some proportion of the population actively wants, and another proportion of the population would happily tolerate, fascistic leadership, because it serves some strands of the human psyche.

We’ve got used to the idea that those proportions can never reach critical mass (it doesn’t need to be a majority, just some mysterious “enough”), but in doing so we’ve been crazily complacent, because they surely can, and do, under “the right” conditions.

I couldn’t put a finger on exactly what those conditions are, but they seem to me to involve things like economic reversal, combined with a widespread sense of being deprived of purpose, optimism, and identity ….. a collapse of hope might be the way to summarise it, and what fascism does is promise a better future, usually by stomping on someone else and taking theirs away.

Personally, I also think that capitalism predisposes towards fascism, because it has boom and bust cycles (economic reversals) inherent within it, because it has to create ever-rising tides of material hope (“false needs” in most cases), which for a significant proportion of the population can never come to pass (so rising tides of realisation and disappointment), because it demands low taxation and thereby low-quality or zero services (more disappointment), and because it has an in-built drive to monopoly, which translates into an in-built drive to concentration of power. The ultimate place becomes a state captured by monopolist capitalists, operating fascistically, with the population reduced to mere worker-consumer-drones, probably permanently at war, because that acts as an engine of control, as well as continually destroying value (it acts as a sort of “sink” for natural resources and labour, which is essential to keep the production-line from jamming solid with unwanted products). It’s the absolute antithesis of sustainable existence.

More dystopian novels, but I think they were written last time round.

The positive side of all this, of course, is that monopolistic capitalists can’t continue to accumulate riches beyond the dreams of avarice, and live lives of obscene power and luxury, if the fascistic leaders that they enable/need/sponsor get too carried away and nuke the place to a wasteland, so they ought to try to keep the demagogues on some sort of leash, and the wars bloody, destructive, and oppressive of spirit, but not actually existential threats. If we’re lucky.

Oh, and there are other forms of authoritarian leadership available, offering all the same sorts of misery, without much in the way of capitalism, so I’m not suggesting that monopolistic capitalism is the only route to widespread misery, just one of several.

^ What Nearholmer says. A good analysis, a frightening prospect, coming soon to many countries, enabled by "social (?) media".