Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

I think there is enough stink to coat both 'sides' of the issue.  

I follow Robert Reich, former Sec. of State on FB and he posted the first piece I have yet to see that dispassionately and fairly puts a moral framework on everything.

 

"Friends,
Last weekend, I met with a group of students to talk about what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. Some were Jewish, some were Palestinian, one was Israeli, some were from other nations in the Middle East.
The purpose of the meeting was to see what they could agree on, morally.
As you can imagine, emotions ran high.
I suggested that, at least for the purpose of our conversation, they not think of themselves as either “Pro-Palestinian” or “Pro-Israel” but instead look deeper into what basic moral principles were at stake.
After several hours, they agreed to seven moral principles.
I list them here — along with the process we went through — in hopes that they might be helpful to you in thinking about and discussing this ongoing tragedy.
1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable. (Some of the students wanted to explain why Hamas did it — about the accumulated grievances and gruesome history suffered by many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza — but they finally came around to distinguishing between an explanation and a justification. In the end, even those who understood why Hamas did what it did on October 7 agreed that the killings and kidnappings of innocent civilians were not morally justifiable.)
2. Hamas’s avowed aim to murder all Jews is morally despicable. (Again, we spent time distinguishing between an explanation and a justification.)
3. What the Israeli government has done since then in Gaza is also morally despicable. Some students initially wanted to defend Israel by saying that after October 7, Israelis could not feel safe as long as Hamas existed, and therefore Hamas had to be rooted out. This precipitated a discussion about how Hamas could be rooted out without the killing of innocent civilians, including large numbers of children. Which got us to our next principle.
4. The murder or kidnapping of innocent civilians is morally wrong. This was not a difficult principle for them to agree on, although several argued that warfare always involved the killing of innocent civilians, while others charged that Hamas was intentionally using innocent civilians as shields.
5. Israel’s policies toward Palestinians have been segregation and discrimination, based on ethnicity and religion, which are morally wrong. This was a hard principle for many of the students to accept, because they had different understandings of history. So the discussion was difficult. But all of them finally came around. (Most, although not all, decided that a so-called “two-state solution” was necessary, but we didn’t get into the specifics or how it could be achieved, because I wanted to keep them on the track of seeking moral clarity and agreement.)
6. It is morally wrong to urge genocide against any group — whether they constitute a religion, ethnicity, race, or nation. No disagreement on this. Some participants were initially unsure of whether universities should permit such advocacy on campus (the presidents of Penn, M.I.T., and Harvard temporized when asked this at a congressional hearing last week), but all finally agreed that it should not be permitted.
7. All of us have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to prevent and stop all forms of genocide, all killing of innocent civilians, and the promotion of hate. All agreed on this.


Dave

I disagree with conclusion #3.  I think Israel is morally obligated to defend itself from terrorist attacks.   My understanding from US military observers is that Israel is taking the best possible steps to minimize civilian casualties with warnings to evacuate and the like.  No warfare is perfectly executed, but the Israelis are trying.   It is indisputable that Hamas is using the Palestinian people in Gaza as shields.  Thus, the moral culpability for Palestinian civilian casualties lies with Hamas.   

There is a reason using civilians as human shields is a war crime.  If the human shield strategy wins, the alternative is for Israel to take no action while Hamas acts again and again and the Israeli nation dies of a thousand terrorist acts.

Rod's analogy to WWII is applicable here.   Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was moral, because it prevented a vastly greater number of casualties in Japan that would have certainly happened upon a conventional invasion.   History is clear that the Japanese men, women, and children were prepared to fight and die with homemade weapons upon invasion.   In Israel, the civilian casualties are tragic, but far more Palestinians will die if Hamas is allowed to re-group and re-attack, causing more and more desperate Israeli responses as the viability of this ally nation is threatened.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Trump can win the Republican nomination, but I hope it's Nikki Haley.

Trump can win the 2024 general election, but IMHO, he only wins if there is a 3rd party spoiler candidate. And who knows what happens if he has a state or federal conviction before, during, or after the election!

Hi James:  I more than hope, but the polls are pretty grim.   If the Biden v. Trump polls are even close to accurate, the decision to prosecute Trump has backfired as a political matter.   I am saying this as a political observation only, w/n the prosecutions are legally appropriate.  Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Yes, the way that Fox News, OAN, and the rest of the ilk of right wing media reports on Trump anyone who watches only those networks will ever know about the crimes he has committed or how dangerous the man actually is. All they care about are their portfolios. I heard a report today on younger independent voters saying they won’t support Biden this time because of his support of Israel. The economy is humming along, the stock market has reached new highs, inflation is under control and gas prices are low, unemployment is historically low, but the MSM message is people are hurting, we are being overrun by terrorist illegal immigrants, and Biden is too old.

Hi Jim;

The bolded part is a horrible example of reaping what you sow.   

I have read from many sources that the animosity for Israel among the far left, the campus left, and a lot of the D coalition is based in the belief that white colonizers (Israel) are subjugating indigenous people of color (Palestine) and that any violent response to apartheid and  open-air imprisonment by the colonists is justified.   In my view this is historically insane BS, but it is apparently the prevailing view among young political activists on the left.   Painting the issues in this limited way is incomprehensible to me, but if race or fictitious race is the only prism one has for their point of view, then here we are. 

It is indisputable that the timing of the Hamas attack on Israel was bad politically for Biden.   He needs the whole coalition.   Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"In a major legal blow to Trump, the court affirmed he engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol — preventing him from a second White House term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4368569-trump-kicked-off-colorado-ballot-in-14th-amendment-case/

Of course, Trump's people at SCOTUS, starting with Gini Thomas, oops, I mean her husband, Clarence, will quickly hear and overturn the case. Clarence probably has his reason already stamped on his forehead and he will simply email, fax or phone it in or have one his lackeys on his staff do it or they'll all go on speakerphone and sing it like a holiday carol...

Rod, I find it amazing that you attribute political bias to the US Supreme Court, but you give the Colorado Supreme Court a pass.   Are you really so biased yourself that you can not see the hypocrisy in your position?  Jim

Originally Posted by George Blahun

You're right about Clarence, and Sam will likely join in.  There's a chance the other Trump appointees will at least consider the question.  I certainly don't want an all-out fascist takeover of the government, but I don't have a great feeling about the way SCOTUS will vote.

I expect the Supreme Court to overturn, because I think that is the right decision.   Trump has not been charged with insurrection in any court proceeding.   He of course has not been convicted of insurrection in any court proceeding.   Maybe the 14th Amendment contemplates "insurrection" in some sort of generic sense, but I think that is a bad standard because it opens the issue up to 50 different interpretations.  Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Thank you for that quote Comrade Davis.

We'll see what the conservative SCOTUS decides pretty quick. So, if they either hold up the ruling or decline to even hear it will you be satisfied it's not some great left wing conspiracy to deny Trump his rights? He's a f'ing criminal and should be stopped. BTW- any idea where the missing binder full of intelligence is?

This is the perfect opportunity for the GOP to finally wipe their hands of Trump, put forth a viable candidate, and maybe have a shot at regaining the WH. While I won't deny Trump has a shot if he is on the federal ballot I also think the GOP has a better chance with a different candidate.

Agree, but this is not the way to do it.  This case too, like all the criminal charges will backfire.  The Supreme Court will put Trump back on the ballot for the obvious reason of him not having been charged or convicted of insurrection.  The activists who bring these cases will bitch and moan and Trump will emerge stronger.  This is just one more faux-pax (or F up) by the D activist base that is going to guarantee Trump 2.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Oh, boo hoo hoo. Poor Trump, everybody’s picking on him. 91 indictments are so unfair and now this. Hope he’s re-elected so he can make all this BS just go away so he can build his concentration camps along the southern border to hold all the brown and black vermin invading hordes who are infecting our nations bloodlines.

No; it's boo hoo hoo for this nation as the Lefty activists guarantee that Trump wins.  

Originally Posted by James Brown

I expect the Supreme Court to overturn, because I think that is the right decision.   Trump has not been charged with insurrection in any court proceeding.   He of course has not been convicted of insurrection in any court proceeding.   Maybe the 14th Amendment contemplates "insurrection" in some sort of generic sense, but I think that is a bad standard because it opens the issue up to 50 different interpretations.  Jim

Remember that the 14th Amendment was written after and in response to the civil war.  The civil war, was indeed an insurrection.  This "victory" in Colorado is going to be the mother of all Pyrrhic victories.  Jim

Originally Posted by Pete Brayton

I think his removal from the ballot applies only to the primary. I don't know if it applies to the general election. It seems to me that they could do a write in for the primary and if he wins he could still be on the general election ballot. One thing I find interesting is that a conservative woman, Krista Kafer was one of the plaintiffs in the trial. She writes an editorial column in the Denver Post and is usually very conservative.

Hi Pete:  Frankly, none of this is actually relevant in our state.  Trump has about as much chance of carrying CO in the general as I do (as you know, we are CA lite, but with a superlative taxpayer bill of rights).   CO is not the point, of course.   The people who brought this action are trying to hurt Trump nationally, and that will (is) backfiring.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

As far as I know, the Colorado SCOTUS has integrity and ethical standards while SCOTUS does not. 

You could not be more wrong about the SCOTUS.