2024 US Presidential Election

By the end of WWII nearly 6% of land in Palestine was owned by Jews, and Jews cultivated over 10% of the arable land. The holocaust displaced huge numbers of Jews causing the Jewish population in Palestine to expand even more.Britain had ruled Palestine since WWI but after WWII was making plans to give up governance. They attempted to get Palestinians and Jews to negotiate an agreement for two states. The Jews were amenable to two states while the Palestinians rejected any possibility of a Jewish state. Britain left anyway in 1948, believing it unlikely that the two sides would ever reach agreement.War between Jews and Palestinians then broke out. The Palestinians lost and were left with no country. The Palestinians have to accept a large portion of responsibility for the fact that there is not already a Palestinian state.--Percy

Yes, it is the fault of Palestine for losing their war for freedom against the world's newest superpower.The point is there should never have been a war. There should never have been credence given to a 3000 year-old religious claim. The world allowed a violent invasive land grab action based on a god claim. The evil has poured ever since.

Mtg9000, it could be a beautiful relationship! In book or movie form, it would get higher ratings than Romeo and Juliet!! No Senor.
Nein Sir.
Nao Senhor.
Non Monsieur.
Hindi Po.And in keeping with other languages, sayonara for now.

I had earlier responded to your claim that Democrats were trying to keep Trump off the ballot, and I responded in this way: This can be amended now. The final Federal indictments were handed down yesterday. They did *not* include any counts for insurrection, so there is no longer any course of action or sequence of events that could keep Trump off the ballot in 2024.--Percy

I was referring to the war that broke out in Palestine between Jews and Palestinians after Britain left a power vacuum behind in 1948. And I faulted the Palestinians not for losing the war but for refusing, before the war and even before Britain left Palestine, to negotiate on the possibility of two states, a Jewish one and a Palestinian one. Efforts toward a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a state even, were not based on "a god claim," or even on historic territorial claims. There was no Palestinian state for a long time before the formation of Israel. The region of Palestine had been a territory of the Ottoman empire since the 1500's until Britain obtained it by force at the beginning of WWI. Britain issued the Balfour Declaration a couple years later that announced support for a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. By the end of WWII about 6% of the people in Palestine were Jews, a number that was rapidly growing, and the UN issued a partition agreement that divided Palestine between the Palestinians and the Jews.The Balfour Declaration and the UN Partition Agreement were not based upon religious claims on territory but on the facts on the ground, namely that there was already a significant and growing Jewish population in Palestine, which was a region or territory, not a state. The UN tried to create two states, but due to Palestinian intractability that effort failed.Jews are free to say that they have a religious claim on the land, but political efforts to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine did not rely on any such claims.The Palestinians did have very legitimate reasons for opposing the Balfour Declaration and the UN efforts. They realized that a Jewish state in Palestine would grow quickly through immigration and become much more powerful than any Palestinian state.--Percy

You seem to have the weird belief that humanity is peaceful and friendly, but religion fucks it all up. I'm not disputing that prior to the advent of secular society, all civil authority was religious and there were wars and oppression aplenty. But anyone who lived through the 20th century is allowed to ask why secular society has continued to cause wars, oppression and genocide.I'm also not disputing that religious identities map conveniently onto ethnic identities, so demagogues can exploit the differences to cause pogroms, civil wars and genocides. But if you look at what happened in Bosnia or Rwanda, or what's still happening in Palestine and India, and say the problem here is religion, I submit you're seeing what you want to see.You may be right that "There hasn’t been a war, modern or ancient, that did not have God’s blessing," but you really think that WWII, for instance, wouldn't have come about if not for the magic and malign influence of religion? If so, you should think twice before accusing anyone else of delusion. Congratulations, you just dealt yourself a hundred winning hands in a row. The reason they don't let you do that in Vegas is because there's nothing even remotely impressive about it. Again, it might make you feel good to vent your disdain and superiority, but your sloganeering says jack about the phenomenon of religion. But by that standard alone, scientific and technological progress makes religion look like a piker. Does the way science enables domination and slaughter reflect badly on it even in the least, he asked expecting the answer NO? It seems like only one of us is trying to be reasonable here, and the other is just peddling stale rhetoric.

Given Smith's announcement yesterday of more Trump indictments, it's time to update the list. Federal Criminal Indictments:

• Classified documents: Indicted for willful retention of national defense secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy.
  ​
• The January 6th Insurrection: Indicted for scheming to defraud the US by interfering with the vote count, disrupting the counting of the electoral college votes, and conspiracy to deprive citizens of having their votes matter.

State Criminal Indictments:

• Business practices: Indicted for falsifying business records to disguise hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as legal expenses for business rather than campaign expenses.

State Criminal Investigations:

• Georgia Election Interference: Under investigation for trying to influence state officials to reverse Biden's win, and plotting to send fake electors to Washington.

State Civil Suits:

• Business practices: Sued by the State of New York for manipulating the valuations of properties in order to pay less taxes and receive cheaper loans and insurance policies.

--Percy

That would be one way to think of it but I don't think that is very accurate.Here is a quote from one of my quips in another thread at Message 873

Me:

---

No, religion is not solely responsible for war. As nwr said war has a lot of causes. If religion is not directly causing the war they are a major player in supporting and recruiting for their war lord’s benefit.
​
If religion were to vanish would that end war? Of course not. It just won’t be available as a shield to hide the war’s true purpose. It wouldn’t be available to (incite) the populous to hatred and bloodshed. The war lords would have to find less insidious and more direct reasons to force mobilization. And the people will not be swayed by appeals to fantasy. It would be much more difficult to sustain war.

---

No.WWII may have happened anyway but if there were no religion then Hitler could not use jews as scapegoats. There wouldn't be any. If there was to be a holocaust some other reason would have to be found.This kind of historical 'what if' never set well with me. Useless speculations. Yippy! Have you not understood? Religion requires a person to believe a fairy tale. Religion requires a person to act from the basis of fantasy. That is the destruction of critical thought. The historical impact of religious fantasy on societies is well known full of horrors.This is not sloganeering. This is reality. That is the jack, the substance, the "be all and end all" of religion. Suspend reality. Be manipulated by fantasy.My use of the word poison is emotionally loaded, purposely of course, but apt as something bad, something very bad, that seeps into a population destroying cognitive abilities. Poison fits. It's been a while since we've seen this inanity from the religionist argument list.Of course the answer is no. Science discovers. Society, too often guided by religion, weaponizes.If one had listened and understood the science they wouldn't have believed that talking snake and borne the burden of original sin they still carry in their soul and need to be cleansed from, by fire, if necessary. That is the evil of religious thought. Reality does seem to get stale having to repeat the same descriptions over and over and ...

Morbus,If you would like I invite you to continue this discussion in a more appropriate thread. See Message 873.This thread should be kept free of distractions (sure, right) for election stuff.

Where do you get the word "final"? I haven't seen it anywhere else. What stops Smith from handing down more indictments in the future?

Nothing. He should have probably used the term latest, but it seems like you just want troll about anything you can. Back under your rock.

I meant final for Trump in the sense that that was the last open Federal investigation. You're absolutely right that it's within prosecutorial discretion to file additional or amended indictments in any of the cases already filed.And there could be indictments of the unindicted co-conspirators, which speculations say are Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Chesebro and one other not yet identified. One common assumption is that they were left unindicted to give them time to consider whether they might want to testify for the prosecution rather than be indicted and become defendants.In an interview with NPR yesterday Trump lawyer John Lauro described the planned defense, that it would include the claim that Trump had expert lawyers giving him advice and that he was merely following that advice. That seems like a wise path but one Jack Smith has likely anticipated since the unindicted co-conspirators are the same lawyers who were advising Trump.--Percy

a reposted article alerted to from a FB friend:The indictment may or may not lead to a conviction. But the facts it lays out show that Trump is utterly unfit for high office.
By Zack BeauchampUpdate Your Browser | Facebook]-R&c[0]=AT3Gsycy3mMGjGPpJiNhsAPXwLIe9r4nwkijuqRPUlXDn6_1Vtg925af4u9bvugArxP8QIpC4J5XwL2ZlalNTASjooLDuNwlaO7WfQrDHXf7IBaV7glUtso_tqIWy5wkgQ6HEx5fVWXIZgo9g_-onJLz0mpGUCGJlW0fzPprT0RIfoTPXQ

The conspiracy charges against Trump depend, in part, on what he knew and when did he know it.Did he know the election was lost? Having been told the election was lost by dozens of his closest advisors should he have known?The state of mind is important to his defense that he had adequate reason to suspect he had won and had every right to pursue his claims. The best way to establish that defense is to have Trump answer those questions under oath.If you have any familiarity with courtroom process (watch a lot of Law and Order) you know that when the defendant takes the stand the entire case opens into every nook and cranny. Jack Smith, Special Counsel, and team are not legal or political neophytes. His lawyers cannot put Trump on the stand. Once an experienced aggressive prosecutor got done with him he would be under multiple indictments for perjury.That would be fun. Once on the stand Smith could keep him there, daily, for months. Otherwise Trump cannot defend himself against that aspect of the conspiracy charges. Not only bye-bye election, bye-bye acquittal. Can the court impose a sentence of "you cannot hold any federal office in any capacity appointed or elected"?Ooo, Voir dire. Sneak a Trumpette onto the jury? You know the Trumpnuts are going to be looking to threaten all the juror's lives. If they survive, the book sales could be nice.

IANAL, but if T**** wants to make that argument, then I think he needs an insanity plea.