Political Philosophy discussion

[tmv]

Spoiler Discussion with Toffer90 :

If you don't forcefully remove the hundreds of civilians demonstrating on the bridge we want to bomb, we will charge you with war crimes, shoot someone if you must. (Irony)

Yes, I left out the part "...within reason". And it goes without saying that you must not place civilians on bridges, near power plants or the like.

I don't believe it was entirely one sided.

No, it was not. But Serbia was sufficiently involved that they couldn't claim that it was just fate.

I don't know why they hesitated...

That I can tell you. France had done rather well by defending in World War 1, and they believed the defender would still be superior (weapons like machine guns had shifted the power greatly in favor of the defender, and they underestimated the development in tank warfare or perhaps overestimated the capabilities of anti-tank guns). They absolutely wanted Germany to invade them again. Be careful what you wish for...

What I meant is that your claim of just adhering to a protection treaty falls a bit on its face when you violate parts of that treaty at the same time.

Grand scale war decision between giants can not be compared with a large scale bombing decision on David by Goliath.

What if this David is a Goliath in his own right compared to defenseless civilians?

How does that make France and Britain aggressors? I'm falling off here, what is your point? (confused)

It means that France and Britain acted without having all the information, certainly they were not sure to the standard you gave in the beginning. Even back then, the water was still a bit murky, the worst things had not happened yet, and in the end they had to make a decision, even if it was to stay idle. They chose, and we know today that they chose rightly, but it was not a foregone conclusion at that time.

Now your'e just being quarrelsome for the sake of quarrelsomeness alone.

You don't know how often I heard "Ends never justify the means." Perhaps I overreacted, but this statement is one I don't like at all. Of course there are limits to "The end justifies the means.", especially ones related to our limited understanding of things (often leading to the desired end not to be realized), but in general, there is a lot of truth in it. The other exception (perhaps more justified here) is that some means should be penalized in our planning, up to a point where only an extremely strong end and virtual certainty in our information can justify it (virtual is a key word here).

I do agree with that point, but to not repeat similar mistakes one must not downplay or stop discussing the mistakes of the past.

Again, I probably misread that, too. There are a lot of people (even "professionals"), who constantly violate this principle. I think the best one was where an ancient politician was criticized by a "historian" because the policies he implemented did not adhere to modern feminism. And if you think about it, someone like Alexander would be called a fascist by those "experts" for certain. Some of his acts can only be considered genocide.

I despise when people say that it is always better to take action than not to as an argument for hostility without knowing really why.

The worry is that they might be the only power capable of stopping whatever is going on. While I don't think that Marvel is what we should base such decisions on, the Spiderman quote I gave has a lot of truth behind it. The question is: Can we get more information without (or before) we engage in hostilities?

All this and it's the left that wants as much gun control as possible.

The strong gun control we have today in Germany started with the Nazis. Something to consider.

There, they proposed hatred for Jews and anyone else they could marginalize. Here, we propose hatred for Muslims and anyone else we can marginalize.

A major terror attack with thousands of deaths can be a game changer, especially with respect to public opinion. Cracked once said that if anyone had proposed full body scanners in airports in the 90s, they would have been finished (violating both the sense of freedom and of prudishness).

 

[Toffer90]

Spoiler Discussion with tmv :

That I can tell you. France had done rather well by defending in World War 1, and they believed the defender would still be superior (weapons like machine guns had shifted the power greatly in favor of the defender, and they underestimated the development in tank warfare or perhaps overestimated the capabilities of anti-tank guns). They absolutely wanted Germany to invade them again. Be careful what you wish for...

True, a mixture of strategical miscalculation and war weariness from WW1 is a likely part of the explanation.

What I meant is that your claim of just adhering to a protection treaty falls a bit on its face when you violate parts of that treaty at the same time.

The whole point of the guarantee was to give Germany a clear message that if you DoW Poland that would be the same as DoW on the Allies. Germany knew that they in reality declared war on the french and the brits when they declared war on poland, the technicality that is that the french and the brits declared war on Germany was more a formality than an act of aggression, the act of aggression had already happened from the german side at this point. The Germans knew very well what the guarantee meant and was likely making a gamble that the allies would be paralyzed and just stay on the sidelines for as long as possible.

What if this David is a Goliath in his own right compared to defenseless civilians?

KLA was a well armed insurgency group with affiliation to al-qaeda that posed a serious threat to peace and stability in the country, ethnic hate was at the same time at an all time bad as well. Yes, the yugoslav army was a goliath compared to the threat, but relatively speaking, considering the ethnical tensions there at the time, they showed some restraint in reacting to the sabotage and KLA attacks before bombs started dropping all over. Dropping bombs on civil wars rarely improves the situation, the situation has to be really bad before throwing destruction upon it will help. Who did the 100 000 Serb soldiers blame when bombs started dropping on their homeland, their heritage, the KLA, and who do they associate with the KLA, Albanians, of course things took a really bad turn for the worse.
The yugoslav forces was pretty much at full capacity when the war ended, barely having been scratched by the intervention, KLA had damaged the yug forces more during the conflict than what the intervention did, so what did the intervention achieve, chaos, destruction, and mass violence pretty much.
I'm not excusing what they did, there was a lot of collateral casualties before the intervention, but I won't excuse what we did in this scenario either.

It means that France and Britain acted without having all the information, certainly they were not sure to the standard you gave in the beginning. Even back then, the water was still a bit murky, the worst things had not happened yet, and in the end they had to make a decision, even if it was to stay idle. They chose, and we know today that they chose rightly, but it was not a foregone conclusion at that time.

Giving out guarantees to nations is not an unreasonable act of military aggression, one doesn't need to know how real a threat is to justify the guaranteeing of a nations independence. Again I state, the events leading up to WW2 is not really comparable to the events leading up to the Kosovo intervention.

Feels like we are beginning to go in circles here, so probably time to agree to disagree.

 

[JosEPh_II]

You would know better than me for sure, as an outsider looking in on the, in European eyes, chaotic and sensationalist culture; one try not to jump to the extreme conclusions but rather think "it can't possibly be that bad, I'll take what I hear with a grain of salt, maybe the US media is in a phase where they are more hysterical than normal".

It's much worse than "more hysterical than normal". US Main Media is no longer a journalistic effort. Some of the outlets are nothing more than propaganda machines for select partisan political views. They have left proper journalistic rules in the dust of bygone decades and now set up narratives and openly have agendas. Instead of reporting the news, in an objective neutral view that is inherently needed for getting the facts to the people watching them, they openly and unashamedly put their own spin on "the news". Telling lies openly to distort and deceive the general public.

Outlets that were once straight forward and reputable 40-50 years ago are no longer honest or reputable. And there are some that are out right seditious and purposely so. There will be things coming out this fall and winter that will shock the world that has believed the main media of the USA for the past 20+ years. So when you all quote the Times, the Post or Broadcast and Cable "news" networks you are not quoting the truth any more. You are just parroting the gibberish they are feeding the world. America's Main Stream Media is compromised and much of it has been done on purpose by those who own and control these "news" sources.

 

[Toffer90]

@JosEPh_II: I wrote something similar some days ago in this thread, Link. You are far harsher in your conclusion than me, though I'm guessing you are more nuanced about it than what expressed emotionally above gives the impression of.
I see what you mean though, bad press culture does have the ability to fill folks with anger.

There are some bits and pieces of reality, meaning some proper journalism work, here and there even in the US media outlets, but I've many times seen the US media treating rumors, like the word of an influential person, as an absolute truth without showing any signs of there actually being any real investigative work backing it up, probably because it gives a better spin on the piece.

Like when the US media (pretty much all of them) were telling how Venezuela was refusing the red cross to cross the border... I knew at that time that Venezuela had invited the red cross to come to Venezuela, so I found it really strange.
Then the US media (pretty much all of them) reported that Venezuela army were burning the trucks at the border.

It didn't take long for the red cross organization to react furiously towards the US and the Venezuelan opposition for using the red cross symbol in a political theater masquerade without the red cross being aware of it.
Then a week later or so the New York times found out that it was the opposition who had set the trucks on fire and then blamed Venezuela for it... (The bits and pieces of real investigative journalism I mentioned)

One of many examples of the bad habits of US media to treat the unconfirmed as an absolute true story, just the first that came to my mind.
It was presented with conviction in such a way that the viewers would feel stupid to question the veracity of the news.

Spoiler Edit: :

Another one that occurred to me which is happening right now is how Iran is placed in the worst possible light by the US media. How many americans think that Iran is the main source for Islamic terrorism in the world? Well that is what the US media is telling them time and time again, isn't it?
It doesn't make sense though, IS, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram, Al-Shebab, and pretty much all the terrifying terrorist organisations want Iran wiped off the face of this earth, Iran is perhaps a bigger enemy to these organizations than the west is.

So who are these terrorist organisations who Iran show sympathy towards, how bad are they really compared to those SA show sympathy towards, well we got Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Houties in Yemen, the Kurdish PKK in Turkey and surprisingly enough the sunni population of Palestine who are represented by Hamas.
None of these are really big on the international terrorism scene, quite minute actually. Calling them outright terrorist organisations is controversial in very many countries. Hizbollah is more like the national guard of Lebanon, PKK is an insurgency group fighting for Kurdish rights in Turkey, Houties in Yemen were mostly farmers who had had enough of receiving abuse from the Al-Qaeda sympathizing government; and the palestines do have sympathizers even among western countries, where hamas is considered a resistance group instead of a straight out terrorist group.

 

[raxo2222]

@JosEPh_II

Yellow journalism is found everywhere, not just in US media.
Sometimes they may parrot some news, which is actually satire - The Onion is one of these satire media.
Science related stuff often is misinterpreted.
If media is owned by someone afflicted with party X, then something related to party X will look better than actually it is.
Of course said media can claim, that they are unbiased.

Example country has two party system: social democrats and libertarians.
Lets assume they have fairly consistent views for decades and can work together when needed.
Worker Daily is owned by Social Democrat party.
Liberty Now is owned by Libertarian party.
Lets say both of these news networks are equally very biased towards their party.
Something happens, that puts social democrats to shame.
Worker Daily will try to hide it, or downplay it.
Liberty Now instead would blow it out of proportion.
If both of those media were fair, and took 50 years to be this biased, then loyal Worker Daily/Liberty Now reader may not notice, that his media got very biased.
Instead he may think, that other newspaper got twice as much biased.
Moderates would see, that both of these newspapers got very biased.
Situation here would be much more complicated, if one of these parties was radicalizing, and other was following them.

There are international organizations and websites, that aren't related to any media, so you can avoid national media bias like in my example.
It doesn't mean, that international organizations or individual internet users are unbiased of course.
Its just that all those biases might cancel out or result only in very small bias in some direction.
So if I find anything in Internet I just assume, that it isn't 100% true, and it was colourized or adjusted to match someone's agenda.
Blind acceptance of things, that match your views, and blind rejecting things, that don't match your views is bad for sanity and if widespread enough - for democracy.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The strong gun control we have today in Germany started with the Nazis. Something to consider.

In this point, I agree, but not insofar as I believe we can be wary of one faction or another because the paradigm I am proposing is that this is all a very manufactured hall of mirrors designed to twist our minds into believing in the polarized splits that appear to exist, when in reality, the whole undercurrent is operating on a singular agenda, and while part of that agenda is to defang us, as the Nazis did there in Germany, it is being pushed for by the side that doesn't appear to have that same agenda or reason so as to mask the intent by shifting the source of the propagandic push. Get the Dems to push for this so it can appear to be something that opposes the Republicans solid support for the NRA and so on, despite it being a way to weaken us against what will eventually be a GOP coup... why? Because they aren't really different factions at all, just illusions for the media to push us in one direction or another based on whatever batch of opinions we each carry. They have public mentality now down to a science and it's on a whole new level beyond what they had when they pushed the rise of the SS. The agenda for power and who they are is ultimately the same... hail Hydra basically. But they speak with multiple tongues and appear to contradict each other so as to confuse us all and keep us stupid - you can almost see how much they love to get people to vote and push for policies which contradict their own interests directly as much as they can - it's like a joke to them.

I suppose this is all just my own personal conspiracy theory. I could be wrong but there's a lot that does NOT add up going on and what does add up only adds up when you really think outside the box of what anybody is promoting out there as a worldview.

A major terror attack with thousands of deaths can be a game changer, especially with respect to public opinion.

Yes it can. And I'm still completely convinced it was our own internal machinations to create that event for this very purpose.

Cracked once said that if anyone had proposed full body scanners in airports in the 90s, they would have been finished (violating both the sense of freedom and of prudishness).

Exactly... we have willfully given up so much of our personal autonomy, sold by our fears. That was no accident. Similar reasons exist for the Vegas shooter incident, which was not random at all from what I've been able to determine or surmise at least.

It's much worse than "more hysterical than normal". US Main Media is no longer a journalistic effort. Some of the outlets are nothing more than propaganda machines for select partisan political views. They have left proper journalistic rules in the dust of bygone decades and now set up narratives and openly have agendas. Instead of reporting the news, in an objective neutral view that is inherently needed for getting the facts to the people watching them, they openly and unashamedly put their own spin on "the news". Telling lies openly to distort and deceive the general public.

On this we absolutely agree. I sorta feel Fox is a little worse on this than most, Q is the worst by far, and it just gets even less and less accurate the more you look at sources beyond the mainstream, worse because they know that the less rationally cautious people, but those who see through the most acceptable stuff being promoted are the most vulnerable to believing what sounds like it fits their more radical worldview and they've identified what those alternative worldviews ARE and are twisting those against us in the worst ways. Even the 'small independants' and AM radio has been used to manipulate us all and catch the most wary among us into the worst twistings of truth. Please... take EVERYTHING with a HUGE grain of salt. That's all I can really say. There is NO reliable source of information. Those smart enough to see through the main are being snagged and tweaked by the most insidious lies of all that exist out there.

Again, just a perspective I've adopted and so far it has helped to give me a feeling of greater clarity. I am probably wrong about 1000 things too though, which is why I'm not really trying to put any immediate puzzle pieces together on all this specifically.

It doesn't make sense though, IS, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram, Al-Shebab, and pretty much all the terrifying terrorist organisations want Iran wiped off the face of this earth, Iran is perhaps a bigger enemy to these organizations than the west is.

Of course. MY worldview which comes from many discussions with people revealing things like what you said about Venezuela right there (thanks for that insight) has strongly compiled into a picture that suggests that Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram etc... is all the result of and under shadowy control of CIA operations. WE created the enemy we are 'fighting', which is more often about giving us an excuse to be somewhere as it is also a set of HN 'units' able to attack and counter all sorts of factions overseas while we paint them in our media however we want so the people will believe that we need to take military actions we'd never otherwise approve of. If the front line Al-Quada guys ever figured that out they'd REALLY be pissed, but hey, getting all the radicalizable folks in the world coalescing into a functional force under your direction is a great idea and gives you the chance to group them up where you can bomb them out of oblivion if they ever really become a problem for us. Perfect solution... use the hatred of the US to further the agenda of the US. Brilliant.

Do we really have to question why we are at constant odds with Iran? Or is it obvious enough when you take stock of how many nations refuse to allow their economies to be dictated by Federal Reserve systems that are tied to the Global Bank? Not many of them left... let's see, there WAS recently Libya...

Yellow journalism is found everywhere, not just in US media.

Maybe so, and it's always existed here in tabloids. But due to some law changes that allow MSM media to show no unbiased restraint, it has become a circus of late here. It did NOT used to be this way. This is really showing just how important it is to enforce impartial reporting.

Blind acceptance of things, that match your views, and blind rejecting things, that don't match your views is bad for sanity and if widespread enough - for democracy.

True but it's getting harder and harder lately to see that for most of us.

 

[tmv]

Spoiler Discussion with Toffer90 :

Giving out guarantees to nations is not an unreasonable act of military aggression, one doesn't need to know how real a threat is to justify the guaranteeing of a nations independence.

You must be sure that the aggression is going to start from the other side. Even if there are incidents that could make it seem the nation you intend to protect has started the hostilities. And with two masters of propaganda within German leadership (Hitler himself and Goebbels), of course Germany set up a situation where it seemed it was only responding to "Polish aggression". I am speaking about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident which could have given the UK and France an excuse not to honor the treaty. And I think that is what Hitler thought would happen.

America's Main Stream Media is compromised and much of it has been done on purpose by those who own and control these "news" sources.

Which is why it is very hard (especially for a foreigner) to get a clear picture of what is going on. And while there are media in the US supporting the President the situation is dramatically different in Europe, where such a medium would be an absolute exception. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am by the German social democrats, who have absolutely no problem violating any agreement (even ones they participated in) and justify it with them not liking Trump, never mind that the 2 % mark for defence is not at all an "invention" by President Trump. But right now the social democrats fear for the life of their party (the far left having established itself and the former conservatives having gone to the left as well has put this party under pressure) and will do anything to get a sharper profile, it seems.

It didn't take long for the red cross organization to react furiously towards the US and the Venezuelan opposition for using the red cross symbol in a political theater masquerade without the red cross being aware of it.
Then a week later or so the New York times found out that it was the opposition who had set the trucks on fire and then blamed Venezuela for it... (The bits and pieces of real investigative journalism I mentioned)

Do you have a source for this?

And I'm still completely convinced it was our own internal machinations to create that event for this very purpose.

I am still not convinced. For starters (as I pointed out above) you need a scenario where there are not too many independent people involved for a conspiracy to work, and perhaps not too many altogether (people "not in the know" don't count). Then there are debunkings for pretty much any detail that the "conspiracy theorists" put up. I could rather imagine that the USA was painted as weak, non-vigilant or something to entice the enemy to attack at a convenient time (I have heard something like that about the UK versus Argentinia before the Falklands War, because Thatcher was about to be voted out of office). The other aspect is that the entire War on Terror has done nothing to strengthen the USA in an external sense. Before 2001 the USA was the sole superpower left in the world, but today we see the return of strong regional powers and even a new potential superpower (PRC).

Q is the worst by far

I'm sorry, but I don't know that medium. I am surprised that you didn't say "Breitbart", though.

 

[Toffer90]

Do you have a source for this?

I heard a lot about the incident on BBC world service for a week or two, was a big thing, and I think the red cross response was also mentioned in Norwegian news.
I'll see if I can dig up some sources...

Reuters ▬ UN critique of the political theater.
Only Red cross statement about it I could find ▬ Red cross on twitter
The New York Times piece I mentioned

There's probably more but there's limits to how much time I'll spend on this.

I'm sorry, but I don't know that medium. I am surprised that you didn't say "Breitbart", though.

I think he's talking about QAnon (Wikipedia link)

 

[Thunderbrd]

I am still not convinced. For starters (as I pointed out above) you need a scenario where there are not too many independent people involved for a conspiracy to work, and perhaps not too many altogether (people "not in the know" don't count). Then there are debunkings for pretty much any detail that the "conspiracy theorists" put up. I could rather imagine that the USA was painted as weak, non-vigilant or something to entice the enemy to attack at a convenient time (I have heard something like that about the UK versus Argentinia before the Falklands War, because Thatcher was about to be voted out of office). The other aspect is that the entire War on Terror has done nothing to strengthen the USA in an external sense. Before 2001 the USA was the sole superpower left in the world, but today we see the return of strong regional powers and even a new potential superpower (PRC).

I don't think many actually were in on this. It was really only a few that would have needed to understand the truth of the matter. And this isn't about the USA as if it's the 'player' of that nation making this choice so much as it's about the USA as it's a part of that player's many holdings, one it's not afraid to diminish the strength of to create the right narrative.

That said, I don't think that the debunkers are any better than the conspiracy theorists at looking at data from an impartial perspective. But when you have spoken with people who worked there who knew there were unusually secretive engineering projects taking place behind the walls in the weeks leading up to the event and how absolutely unusual it is for a building to collapse in such a manner without thorough planning, adding in tremendous amounts of cause for suspicion regarding whether the one that hit the pentagon was even a plane and then factoring in that the offices struck there were involved in an unprecedented massive audit of government military spending (thereby destroying a ton of documented information and paper trails), interesting details related to the pilots themselves, and how Bush Sr was instrumental in obtaining the financing to help the rise of the Osama led resistance against the USSR in Afghanistan, and on and on, there really is a huge body of suspicious connections that are to be made on this and most of it is actually right out in the open and public knowledge and all it takes is one tweak of the assumption that it was Osama being 'offended' by our sudden withdrawal of support changing to, 'it was all part of the plan', would pretty much answer the whole thing, you start to see a picture emerge. There are a lot of good strategic reasons we would've wanted that to happen, the primary one being where it justifies us to take positions in the hardest to penetrate, central, perhaps most important military placements on the planet.

I'm sorry, but I don't know that medium. I am surprised that you didn't say "Breitbart", though.

You can definitely add them in there, sure!

And Toffer is right about QAnon.

 

[Toffer90]

I think TB is intentionally being "far out man", but I think he acknowledge that, that he simply love speculating. ^^

He does touch upon some stuff that is not that far out though, the hegemonic agenda of the hawks of the US and various economical powerhouses.
A somewhat abstract agenda (perhaps calling it ideology, or shared ambitions, is more accurate) that directs a lot of the US's geopolitical decisions, calling this deep state is not incorrect imo, how deep it goes is however uncertain.
It is no secret that parts in the political machine in the US act quite autonomously from the white house, that there's a lot of powerful players behind the scenes of american overall decision-making, and their methods of influencing decisions vary from actor to actor and can probably be quite subtle. I don't think this deep state has a well defined organizational structure, more like a cell structure.

 

[JosEPh_II]

There is the statement that the GOP will stage a coup. This is an error. The Deep State and some of it's principal players already attempted a Coup on the current President. 1st while he was just a Political candidate. Then by the Special Counsel Mueller and his team of 19 democratic lawyers many of which were HRC's private staff or leading Clinton Foundation lawyers. What is not being acknowledged is that these deep State actors are being exposed now that the Mueller report has come out and been proven to be a big fat nothing burger. But instead was a Hoax and a Subversive act. All set up by a biased FBI, CIA, and DNI cabal of top leaders run at the time by the Deep state elites. And according to one out spoken player HRC was Supposed to have won the 2016 election by a margin of 100,000,000 to 0 votes. That is a direct quote from one of his many texts while heading up the investigation of Russian collusion and the Trump campaign. Also remember HRC publicly said, "Why am I not winning?!" The fix was in. But the silent majority said No to her.

The losing 2016 Presidential candidate and her former Administration are and will be exposed for what they really were and still are. A deep state cabal that tried to rig an Election. In the coming months grand juries will be set up to start the proceedings to expose the wrong doing that was done by the former Administration and it's leaders. Jeffery Epstein's "suicide" was done to stave off exposure to certain Political and Social elites over bad moral character and actions.

But unfortunately the Main Stream Media were also major plyers in this Hoax and Sedition. And were willful participants.

Sorry T-brd but flip your narrative 180 degrees and you will see what really has been going on now for all most 3 years. George Soros though does appreciate your support. But in all truth and honesty Please wake up, Please. HRC and her associates do not care 1 flip about you and the rest of the democrats that were supposed to put her into office. Just like her actions over Benghazi she will do the same to you. Please stop believing the lies. And she is a High Master at the Craft of Lying and Deception.

I'm not trying to agitate or hurt your sense of pride T-brd. But you are wrong on so many levels. As is half this nation. One final thing please look up the word reprobate. Don't fall into it's trap. There is Hope though, and it lies with Jesus. Call out to him while you still can. Because the days till the coming Judgement from the Holy One are very short. This plea goes out to all in this discussion who do not know God or his only begotten son Jesus. A Great Time of Trouble such as this world has never seen is almost upon us. Throw off your false Pride, throw off the yoke of this world's illusions. Call out to Jesus and ask him to save You. He paid the Price for you and the wrongs we all have done. But by the Grace of God and Jesus sacrifice there is a way to get right with God Almighty, Who Is and Was and shall Forever Be. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light, no man can come to the Father but through me." The wages of sin is Death Eternal. But thru Jesus there is Forgiveness and Restoration to the Father of All. HIs Judgements are True and a wonderful thing to those that seek him. He desires that none of His creation should be lost. But to those that will not turn to him out of stubbornness and pride they are and will be terrible.

I have presented unto you all the Truth. So that in that Day of Judgement not a one of you will be able to stand before God and accuse me of not telling you the Truth. As your life is read and exposed for all to see from the Books of Life. Will your Name be found written in the Lamb's Book of Life? I Pray that it will. This day I have given you a witness. Don't walk away from it. And Satan I bind you in Jesus' Name from blinding these people that read this post or from hardening their hearts. That their spirit will resonate with this Truth. Thank you Jesus. Unto you Lord father is the Power, the Kingdom, and the Glory for ever and ever. Selah. And Amen.

 

[TaylorItaly]

@JosEPh_II : I hope you do not think that Fox News is the good One !!!

 

[Toffer90]

We are an unlikely/strange group of workfellows aren't we. ^^

 

[Thunderbrd]

Joe... I know your perspective and yes I am 100% in disagreement and believe mostly the opposite but that does not also mean I agree with Dems, Soros or whoever your team wants to label the enemy. Again, there is NO source of info out there that is being honest right now.

Interestingly, my take is also biblical:

Woe to thee oh Earth and Sea (because you're going to be incredibly polluted by all of this...), for the Devil (Putin), sends the Beast (Trump, the perfect exemplification of and poster boy for all 7 deadly sins) with wrath (using the irrational anger of the people to win the election) because he knows the time (of oil domination) is short. Let him who hath understanding recon the number of the Beast, for it is a Human number (an address). Its Number is 666.

Honestly... I'm pretty sure this is all end times prophecy taking place, and part of that is that the Anti-Christ will liken himself to a Chosen One and a King of Israel. And many of the faithful will think he's the 2nd coming. hmm...

 

[raxo2222]

HRC is one of worst Democrats.
No idea why they sabotaged themselves, just like Republicans sabotaged themselves with Trump.
Its like civil version of cold war - US politics is like team sports, where one team is worse than other.
I think both of these parties would gladly setup single party system. It wouldn't last for too long though, as those parties aren't monolith.

Both of those parties could chose way better candidates for president.
Also Democrat and Republican biased media are just dividing America - things like Fox News or CNN needs deep reform.

 

[tmv]

Its Number is 666.

If you can connect the number 666 to Trump I'd be impressed. Not necessarily convinced, but certainly impressed.

King of Israel

Are we talking about Trump at all?

Because the days till the coming Judgement from the Holy One are very short.

To this I reply with Matthew 24:36 (all the following quotes are from the King James Bible)

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Or with Mark 13:32

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Or with Acts 1:7

And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

 

[raxo2222]

Are we talking about Trump at all?

Yeah.

Also I'll quote Orwell here:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

 

[JosEPh_II]

 

[raxo2222]

Some men just want to watch world burn.

Some hippies, anarchocommunists, SJWs and others can believe in similar conspiracy theories, where small group of people is ruling from behind scenes.
That is conspiracy theories, where certain people are out there to get everyone are independent from any ideology.

So you and TB agree in one: There is shadow government.
Its plans and ideologies are details, where you disagree.

 

[JosEPh_II]