The Gantz Megillah.

expat500

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2012
4,673
3,249
1,928
In the eyes of the Biden administration Hamas is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. is willing to live with Iran’s proxies everywhere, as part of its “regional integration” policy—i.e., appeasing Iran. But they are unwilling to live with Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition. The stubborn Netanyahu clearly does not want to learn from his would-be tutors like U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken how to “share the neighborhood” with genocidaires in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, and Tehran, whom his electorate understands to be bent on murdering them.

If the Netanyahu problem is too big to contain, then it follows that it must be solved. And it seems that the Biden administration has zeroed in on what Tony Badran has called a Herodian solution: finding a local proxy who will impose the U.S. agenda on a reluctant Israeli electorate.

King Herod the Great won his throne because the Roman Empire stepped in and helped him defeat his Israelite adversaries. The American empire wants to help install Benny Gantz as Israel’s next prime minister for the same reason: The plan is for the administration to help him defeat Netanyahu, then for him to assemble a dovish coalition that will return Israel to the two-state track negotiations—which, though unlikely to produce two states, would nevertheless help “de-escalate” in Gaza, the last hot spot in the region where Iran’s power is actually challenged.

 
It was American progressives, liberals, and Democrats who were always so opposed to what they called "nation building" whenever the country had a Republican President. Now that they control the White House and the Senate, we see how disingenuous they were all along.
 
It was American progressives, liberals, and Democrats who were always so opposed to what they called "nation building" whenever the country had a Republican President. Now that they control the White House and the Senate, we see how disingenuous they were all along.

You prefer to just kill the natives? You sure are pro immigrants
 
I thought you were a monarchist?

Should that whole place just revert back to the line of kings?



Hope she's also testing Palestinians m

“There’s no doubt a historical King David existed, because the scribes of the Bible give us detailed accounts that fit in with other sources of the time,” noted archaeologist Israel Finkelstein said over the phone on Monday. “But the Bible itself is ambiguous in describing the kingdom in various ways and with various boundaries – one time it says [the kingdom] straddled Dan to Beersheba, and another time the Euphrates to Egypt.”
Finkelstein said David may have been a leader of great import in the history of the Kingdom of Judea but that archeological evidence directly related to him was extremely scarce. Furthermore, what does exist suggests he ruled over much less of the land than what was credited to him in the biblical narrative. Finkelstein suggested we think of David as a chieftain of a small but ambitious tribe rather than a mighty king lording over distant lands.
“A founder of a 10th-century BCE dynasty in the Judean Hills existed, but it doesn’t mean he had the power later attributed to him,” Finkelstein said.
 
Democracy is fragile. It is messy, slow, and cumbersome. It is in danger everywhere right now as more people seem to be casting an eye towards authoritarian rule?

Interesting poll: Record Low in U.S. Satisfied With Way Democracy Is Working.
This is a false paradigm though, and it has been for about twenty years or so.

They go out and ask folks;

"Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in this country?"

But don't you see? The system threw everyone over twenty, thirty years ago. It is a bullshit question, b/c we don't even have any representation. The oligarchs that run the system, IN BOTH PARTIES, keep the voice of the people from being heard.

Didn't you see that debate over in Oxford?

Here, I'll update the thread, b/c that tweet is annoying to watch and it doesn't show Pelosi's side. . .

. . . but while the folks at Oxford thought Pelosi won the debate, the reaction of the internet was that Winston Marshall demolished her.

And that is the truth, here it is. . . We AREN'T a democracy, or a representative republic, we don't operate as such, that is just rhetoric. The people are NOT represented.

The fact is precisely what RFKjr, has been talking about. . . regulatory capture and corruption.

Corruption is Legal in America​

2,126,903 views Apr 30, 2015


Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens​

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2014

". . . The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.

<snip>

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

A possible objection to populistic democracy is that average citizens are inattentive to politics and ignorant about public policy; why should we worry if their poorly-informed preferences do not influence policy making? Perhaps economic elites and interest-group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.

But we tend to doubt it. We believe instead that—collectively—ordinary citizens generally know their own values and interests pretty well, and that their expressed policy preferences are worthy of respect. Footnote 50 Moreover, we are not so sure about the informational advantages of elites. Yes, detailed policy knowledge tends to rise with income and status. Surely wealthy Americans and corporate executives tend to know a lot about tax and regulatory policies that directly affect them. But how much do they know about the human impact of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or unemployment insurance, none of which is likely to be crucial to their own well-being? Most important, we see no reason to think that informational expertise is always accompanied by an inclination to transcend one's own interests or a determination to work for the common good.

All in all, we believe that the public is likely to be a more certain guardian of its own interests than any feasible alternative.. . "


What I suggest that Gallup Poll is actually reflecting? A general knowledge of what is really going on. . . We don't really HAVE a representative democracy anymore. . . .
 
Democracy is fragile. It is messy, slow, and cumbersome. It is in danger everywhere right now as more people seem to be casting an eye towards authoritarian rule?

Interesting poll: Record Low in U.S. Satisfied With Way Democracy Is Working.
Depends on how you mean democracy. It really means every citizen gets to vote on each issue. It truly is rule by the masses. Democrats do not practice democracy at all. They are authoritarians.
 
Depends on how you mean democracy. It really means every citizen gets to vote on each issue. It truly is rule by the masses. Democrats do not practice democracy at all. They are authoritarians.
Americans have got so used to Democrats alleging we are a Democracy they believe we are.
Our founders told us different. We did not change.
 
Thomas Paine helped convert me from Democrat to Republican. What part should we study again?
Our conversation started with my post #3.

I suggest you refer to Paine's ideas on. . .

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession​


". . . Paine wonders where the power of kings originally comes from, and decides that this power is always based on one of three things: election, random selection, or usurpation. Paine says that if a king is chosen by election, this means all future kings should be chosen in the same way, and if the king usurped his throne, then the entire reign is illegitimate. Any way you look at it, hereditary succession is not valid. Paine adds that hereditary succession brings other evils with it. For example, people who see themselves as born into an elite existence are often "ignorant and unfit." Lastly, Paine refutes the theory that hereditary succession reduces civil wars, as there have been at least eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions in Britain's history. Monarchy and hereditary succession, Paine concludes have produced nothing in the world but bad governance and bloodshed.. . ."

1716079788697.png


1716079887718.png

 
Depends on how you mean democracy. It really means every citizen gets to vote on each issue. It truly is rule by the masses. Democrats do not practice democracy at all. They are authoritarians.
The same folks run both parties.

Stahp being such a fool.
 
Last edited:
This is a false paradigm though, and it has been for about twenty years or so.

They go out and ask folks;

"Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in this country?"

But don't you see? The system threw everyone over twenty, thirty years ago. It is a bullshit question, b/c we don't even have any representation. The oligarchs that run the system, IN BOTH PARTIES, keep the voice of the people from being heard.

Didn't you see that debate over in Oxford?

Here, I'll update the thread, b/c that tweet is annoying to watch and it doesn't show Pelosi's side. . .

. . . but while the folks at Oxford thought Pelosi won the debate, the reaction of the internet was that Winston Marshall demolished her.

And that is the truth, here it is. . . We AREN'T a democracy, or a representative republic, we don't operate as such, that is just rhetoric. The people are NOT represented.

The fact is precisely what RFKjr, has been talking about. . . regulatory capture and corruption.

Corruption is Legal in America​

2,126,903 views Apr 30, 2015


Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens​

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2014

". . . The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.

<snip>

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

A possible objection to populistic democracy is that average citizens are inattentive to politics and ignorant about public policy; why should we worry if their poorly-informed preferences do not influence policy making? Perhaps economic elites and interest-group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.

But we tend to doubt it. We believe instead that—collectively—ordinary citizens generally know their own values and interests pretty well, and that their expressed policy preferences are worthy of respect. Footnote 50 Moreover, we are not so sure about the informational advantages of elites. Yes, detailed policy knowledge tends to rise with income and status. Surely wealthy Americans and corporate executives tend to know a lot about tax and regulatory policies that directly affect them. But how much do they know about the human impact of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or unemployment insurance, none of which is likely to be crucial to their own well-being? Most important, we see no reason to think that informational expertise is always accompanied by an inclination to transcend one's own interests or a determination to work for the common good.

All in all, we believe that the public is likely to be a more certain guardian of its own interests than any feasible alternative.. . "


What I suggest that Gallup Poll is actually reflecting? A general knowledge of what is really going on. . . We don't really HAVE a representative democracy anymore. . . .

We have a few very honest politicians and I will put a number on them based on my own experience. 40 percent at the max are honest with voters. 60 percent are liars.
And the few who are honest, are edge grinders. They want to do what is right but the system puts an end to it. To vote for Democrats is way worse than voting for Republicans. Those who want to do the right thing, the Republicans are but 40 percent of the honest.
 
I have personally met politicians and even had dinner sitting with them. If feels as if one is a fool if the politician is a democrat.
Mister Beale, once I managed a Democrats office. I have extensive knowledge of his dishonesty. I had dinner with a Democrat congressman in CA. I knew he had risen from being a teacher. I wanted to discuss education in CA but he never let me. He talked only about bridge tolls.
 
You prefer to just kill the natives? You sure are pro immigrants
Read your Koran Fatima, it’s right there in the beginning. The natives aren’t the Arab invaders, they're the Children of Israel that entered the Promised land of Zion after leaving servitude in Egypt around 3500 years ago.
 

Forum List

Back
Top