Trump’s insanity is kind of like the US gun violence epidemic. Most reasonable people know it’s an extremely fucked up and unacceptable situation, but no one’s really sure what to do about it, so we’re just gonna kind of ignore it and become desensitized to it. I mean, most decent people thought Sandy Hook would be the turning point. That had to be a red line, right? Nope. Similarly, Trump threatens the existence of an entire civilization. That has to be it, right? Like, that’s gotta a red line, right? Probably not.

Prosecutors allege the defendants billed Medicare and other government programs for services that were unnecessary or never provided, including enrolling patients who were not terminally ill in hospice to maximize reimbursements. Officials said the cases are part of a push to crack down on fraud in publicly funded health programs, which investigators say account for significant financial losses across the system.

I mean, ok. If the fraud is real, then go after the perpetrators. Sure. It’s beyond stupid to only target blue states, though. Fraud happens in red states, too, I guarantee it.

I see. I just wondered if there was a technical difference, because tribal sovereignty does seem to be more limited than what you would expect of a sovereign nation. We don’t treat them like separate countries. They’re not usually identified on maps of North America, for instance. And I get that most reservations are relatively small, but the Navajo Nation is about the size of Ireland, so plenty big enough to be identified on a map.

But I don’t mean to interrogate you, I’m just curious about this topic. I think I’ll do some research because I’d like to know more.

How is a sovereign entity different from a sovereign nation? If it is different.

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump said, repeating his false allegations about mail ballots as he signed the order. “I think this will help a lot with elections.”

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.”

George Orwell, ‘1984’

Removed by mod

You’re 100% right. I’m wrong, about everything. Ever. Please leave me alone now.

Oh my god, I am so fucking sick of this conversation. Ok, some leftists want to build a leftist program, some don’t. Some want to build a coalition with non-leftists, some don’t. Or whatever, who knows, I don’t fucking care anymore.

All of that shit happened before I was born. All I can tell you is I never wanted you or any other leftist to be subservient to anyone. As far as I’m concerned you can think and vote however the hell you want. I can’t speak to what other people want, I don’t control other people.

But let’s be honest, you never wanted a coalition, you just wanted leftists to be subservient to liberals.

That’s not true. You can vote however you want, you can advocate for whatever political movement you want and you can try to build the world that you want. That’s always been true and that remains true.

you think they are on the same “team”. Leftists are not your “army” to command

I don’t think that. I did think leftists wanted to build a coalition with other groups to take on the far right, but I know better now. Don’t worry, I won’t make that mistake again.

There are leftists attempting to build a program. And the people who think they are leftists (but aren’t actually leftists) don’t like the program and instead attack the program and argue for defeating the right at all costs.

I agree. “Left unity” is a myth. Non-Leftists really need to stop trying to build a coalition with the Left. Leftists are not interested in coalition building, they’re only interested in building their program. We non-Leftists need to finally realize this.

…you’re not the left.

You’re right, I’m not.

And the right wins again. By default.

The right has such a huge advantage. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the left to destroy itself through purity tests and infighting.

It’s like if two armies met on a battlefield, but instead of fighting each other one of the armies just fought amongst themselves while the other watched.

Time to electrify and become energy independent with renewables. There’s no straight that can be shut down that would stop your solar panels from generating electricity. No government can stop the wind from blowing and wind turbines from spinning.

We have too damn much money and not nearly enough brains.

I pretty much dislike the framing sewn into your comment.

That’s understandable, because I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to Americans who try to justify the US-Israel attacks in Iran as moral acts done in the name of defeating tyranny. The Iran war is overall unpopular among Americans, but those who do support it do so for this reason. I was hoping I might be able to get a few of them to see that this tactic is counterproductive, especially if they truly care about harm reduction.

But maybe I underestimate how many Americans are just malicious, bloodthirsty barbarians. Of course, by that logic you could be underestimating how many Iranians are equally bloodthirsty. Perhaps the Iranian regime is not just blameless victims of Western pillaging. Anything’s possible, I suppose.

Tehran has said it will “irreversibly destroy” essential infrastructure across the Middle East, including vital water systems, if the US follows through on Donald Trump’s threat to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants unless the strait of Hormuz is fully opened within two days.

That’s why we shouldn’t have taken this tact. When you put a regime that has proven it does not care about civilian lives or human rights into a situation where they have nothing to lose, you are putting innocent lives at risk. Of course Trump and Netanyahu don’t care about human lives, either. So the situation is especially dangerous.

Remember the Waco siege in 1993? The Feds tried to raid the compound of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, because they thought they had illegal weapons. It turned into a stand off that lasted 51 days, and ended with a huge fire and 70 some of the Branch Davidians were killed, including a bunch of kids. No one is 100% sure who started the fire. Some people think an incendiary tear gas canister thrown into the compound by the Feds started the fire. Others think David Koresh and his people deliberately started the fire themselves. But, honestly, it really doesn’t matter who started the fire, the Feds shouldn’t have put a man like Koresh into a situation like that. By putting a potentially dangerous person into an increasingly no-win situation, where innocent lives were involved, you’re putting those innocent lives at serious risk.

The current situation in Iran is similar, but of course on a much larger scale. By pinning the Khamenei regime in a corner, we are putting innocent lives at risk. Some will say, “well, the regime should surrender to save lives.” Yes, they should, but they won’t. David Koresh should have surrendered to prevent the deaths of those children, but he didn’t. You can try to absolve yourself of responsibility for the tragedy, as the Feds did in the Koresh case, by saying, “if they would’ve just surrendered, those innocent people would still be alive,” but that won’t bring back the dead.

Some people get so caught up in “defeating the bad guy,” that they completely lose sight of the harm they are facilitating. At some point you have to ask yourself, “is this about winning or about saving lives?” Is this about you looking tough and dominant, and not backing down, or is this about protecting innocent people? If it’s the former, how many innocent lives are you willing to put at risk to “win” this battle of masculine wills?

There are many smaller democracies that don’t score well, such as most of South America, the Caribbean, much of Africa, etc.

Sure, I acknowledge that. I’m not saying that a smaller population guarantees a successful democracy, nor a social democracy, but I think it is one of the requisites. Those other things you mentioned are probably requisites as well.

Again, I think it comes down to simple math. A single representative can’t represent 600,000 people as effectively as 30,000. More people means greater diversity of thoughts and ideas, beliefs, ideologies, interests, etc. And that’s especially true if the people hold mutually exclusive ideas. For instance, a representative can’t represent both a white supremacist and black civil rights leader simultaneously. Their goals and world view are diametrically opposed. A representative can’t represent both at the same time, at least not on the matter of civil rights. Similarly, a representative can’t represent both a social democrat and a neoliberal capitalist simultaneously. Their goals are in direct opposition to one another. The social democrat wants higher taxes and a stronger social safety net, the neoliberal wants lower taxes and a smaller safety net.