Very much appreciate your definition of morality according to natural law. (I'll be keeping it in front of me until it is memorized in mind.) I do believe that "We The People" can refute popular "consensus speak" which uses ideological language to explain subject matter. Our culture is steeped in relativism, but every person is an autonomous individual who can speak their own thoughts. I pray that everyone who believes in the righteousness (not "right") of the "Make America Great Again" movement remembers that they are the power underpinning the "public-facing personalities" in positions of governing authority or social influence. We The People can express our disapproval of unjust and immoral actions of the part of those in any leadership position---leaders who are accountable for their public charge. Remember that Trump is expert at "reading the room", picking up on audience enthusiasm for other individuals---remember the long ago Trump rally when he introduced Rep. Jim Jordan to come to the podium and say a few words? Trump was visibly moved by the audience's super enthusiastic welcoming approval of Jim Jordan---and Trump remembered, and nurtured a relationship with Jordan. Most recently, the Trump rally of inviting RFK Jr. to announce his support of Trump---the audience approval for RFK is never going to be forgotten by Trump. To conclude, my point is that we do not have to go along with the lies, intimidation, immoral government actions, nor any person who promulgates such damaging harm to those who know the good and only seek more of it in every place.
Gennady, I have tried posting a reply under your comment but it is not working. So I will try it here:
I agree with Mark's comment. The problem is not Kellogg per se or his qualifications. It is his plan's failure to recognize Russia's concerns and their current position.
A freezing of the current lines of engagement in itself does not ensure that Ukraine will not be used by the West as a threat to Russia in the future. Putting off possible NATO membership for the Ukraine for 20 years does not ensure that Russia's immediate needs for security are met. The West reneged on the Minsk and Istanbul agreements in short order. Why should they be trusted not to renege on any agreement like this that includes no security guarantees in short order as well?
Putin has made it clear he needs not only the annexation of the areas east of the Dnieper for their security but also a Ukraine that is neutral politically and a neutralization of its radicalized and pro-Western armed forces. Russia is looking for a situation where the territory and government and military of the Ukraine are not actively being used as agents of the West against it. Kellogg's plan and Trump's approach do not seem to recognize this.
Putin is also looking to secure Russia against NATO threats in Scandinavia, the Baltics, Poland, and Romania - threats they had promised not to make in years past but are now making. In other words Putin wants a total revision of the security structure in Europe. No one in the West has begun to address this.
It is certainly not black and white (like everything else). The fact is "The US State Department designated HAMAS as a foreign terrorist organization in October 1997."
So technically when someone expresses their support for Hamas that could legitimately bring them under U.S. government scrutiny and investigation as to the nature of that support. That is (or should be) opposed to someone saying "I am against genocide" or "I don't like what Israel is doing in Gaza," or "I believe in a two-state solution" or even "I can sympathize with the grievances stated by Hamas."
Yes it is a thin (and worrisome) line. In this case I am willing to give Bondi a one-time bit of leeway by assuming her comments were shallow and reflexive. But then again who am I? If this pattern is repeated by her and made extensive as regards free speech in general, then we have a problem. In the mean time (like before or during confirmation hearings), someone needs to hold her feet to the fire to clarify her 1st Amendment views.
I'm about to commit the crime of hate speech by posting from the Declaration of Independence.
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
Absolutely disgusting. As fast as Trump can pardon the J6ers, Bondi will be refilling the cells with a new bunch of people guilty of exercising their rights to assemble, speak, write, or worship.
I was speaking of future persecutions of Trump voters. It could be something like J6 (gathering) or those who didn't get in line for Covid vaccines (free speech). Or bible-upholding Christians (religious worship).
I try to look at policies from the perspective of, "what will it be like when the other side has these powers?" The answer is not good at all. But it sounds like she would like to get started right away.
Question: do you think that she does not understand that she would soon be persecuting Trump supporters? Or that she doesn't care?
His view on how to deal with Russia is basically the same as the current regime's--except that he says they should have been tougher and given Ukraine more and better weapons sooner. His appointment would appear to signal that Trump is still fixed on the strategy that he has enunciated in the past and which Gorka repeated.
Very much appreciate your definition of morality according to natural law. (I'll be keeping it in front of me until it is memorized in mind.) I do believe that "We The People" can refute popular "consensus speak" which uses ideological language to explain subject matter. Our culture is steeped in relativism, but every person is an autonomous individual who can speak their own thoughts. I pray that everyone who believes in the righteousness (not "right") of the "Make America Great Again" movement remembers that they are the power underpinning the "public-facing personalities" in positions of governing authority or social influence. We The People can express our disapproval of unjust and immoral actions of the part of those in any leadership position---leaders who are accountable for their public charge. Remember that Trump is expert at "reading the room", picking up on audience enthusiasm for other individuals---remember the long ago Trump rally when he introduced Rep. Jim Jordan to come to the podium and say a few words? Trump was visibly moved by the audience's super enthusiastic welcoming approval of Jim Jordan---and Trump remembered, and nurtured a relationship with Jordan. Most recently, the Trump rally of inviting RFK Jr. to announce his support of Trump---the audience approval for RFK is never going to be forgotten by Trump. To conclude, my point is that we do not have to go along with the lies, intimidation, immoral government actions, nor any person who promulgates such damaging harm to those who know the good and only seek more of it in every place.
Gennady, I have tried posting a reply under your comment but it is not working. So I will try it here:
I agree with Mark's comment. The problem is not Kellogg per se or his qualifications. It is his plan's failure to recognize Russia's concerns and their current position.
A freezing of the current lines of engagement in itself does not ensure that Ukraine will not be used by the West as a threat to Russia in the future. Putting off possible NATO membership for the Ukraine for 20 years does not ensure that Russia's immediate needs for security are met. The West reneged on the Minsk and Istanbul agreements in short order. Why should they be trusted not to renege on any agreement like this that includes no security guarantees in short order as well?
Putin has made it clear he needs not only the annexation of the areas east of the Dnieper for their security but also a Ukraine that is neutral politically and a neutralization of its radicalized and pro-Western armed forces. Russia is looking for a situation where the territory and government and military of the Ukraine are not actively being used as agents of the West against it. Kellogg's plan and Trump's approach do not seem to recognize this.
Putin is also looking to secure Russia against NATO threats in Scandinavia, the Baltics, Poland, and Romania - threats they had promised not to make in years past but are now making. In other words Putin wants a total revision of the security structure in Europe. No one in the West has begun to address this.
It is certainly not black and white (like everything else). The fact is "The US State Department designated HAMAS as a foreign terrorist organization in October 1997."
https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/hamas_fto.html
So technically when someone expresses their support for Hamas that could legitimately bring them under U.S. government scrutiny and investigation as to the nature of that support. That is (or should be) opposed to someone saying "I am against genocide" or "I don't like what Israel is doing in Gaza," or "I believe in a two-state solution" or even "I can sympathize with the grievances stated by Hamas."
Yes it is a thin (and worrisome) line. In this case I am willing to give Bondi a one-time bit of leeway by assuming her comments were shallow and reflexive. But then again who am I? If this pattern is repeated by her and made extensive as regards free speech in general, then we have a problem. In the mean time (like before or during confirmation hearings), someone needs to hold her feet to the fire to clarify her 1st Amendment views.
I'm about to commit the crime of hate speech by posting from the Declaration of Independence.
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
As I stated on a previous post, she was also on the wrong side in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case.
Absolutely disgusting. As fast as Trump can pardon the J6ers, Bondi will be refilling the cells with a new bunch of people guilty of exercising their rights to assemble, speak, write, or worship.
Are you speaking of the Hamas sympathizers or the J6ers? I see the J6ers in the same situation. Thrown in the D.C. gulag. I find both very similar.
I was speaking of future persecutions of Trump voters. It could be something like J6 (gathering) or those who didn't get in line for Covid vaccines (free speech). Or bible-upholding Christians (religious worship).
As Mate says, it's all very worrying.
I try to look at policies from the perspective of, "what will it be like when the other side has these powers?" The answer is not good at all. But it sounds like she would like to get started right away.
Question: do you think that she does not understand that she would soon be persecuting Trump supporters? Or that she doesn't care?
It’s interesting that supporting any group of peoples is logically equivalent, be they Palestinians or Ukrainians.
The only difference is that supporting Palestinians inherently denies Jewish supremacism and Israel’s exceptional claims to land.
More of the same. Discouraging. We need realists who can appreciate the Russian position, stat!
His view on how to deal with Russia is basically the same as the current regime's--except that he says they should have been tougher and given Ukraine more and better weapons sooner. His appointment would appear to signal that Trump is still fixed on the strategy that he has enunciated in the past and which Gorka repeated.