Trump

[Brookie1973]

The lefts own Bill Maher telling it like it is. Absolutely spot on.

 

[h27272727]

The lefts own Bill Maher telling it like it is. Absolutely spot on.

I agree most on the left (amongst US citizens) tend to be pro-Palestine. Not so much the politicians.

I suppose that besides political leaders - who themselves all tend to carry differing opinions on topics - there's no actual spokesperson for the left. Bill Maher has expressed similar views for a while now, so what I can take from that is that Bill Maher thinks wxy on topic z.

I must've touched on this a fair few times before but as fun as it may be politics is not sport. There should be no 'winning', 'losing', just as the thoughts or actions of one person should not be conflated with the thoughts of his 'team'. Like with same sex / trans / abortion, people have different views for a variety of reasons; religious (incl. rapture theory), cultural, political, social and even economical.

Economical is a huge factor in US politics (that text is hyperlinked to a page with full details). From the 2024 election cycle, the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte (AIPAC) was the 18th largest contributor (out of 40,455). They pay / contribute to 135 house democrats and 200 house republicans. $24 million was given to democrat house politicians (avg $178,000 each), while $18 million went to the republicans ($90,000 each). What's amazing is that back in 2016, the average AIPAC contribution to house members was $1160 and $500, respectively. Devil is in the details. Money aside the US has been aggressively pro-Israel since about the 1960's - politics aside.

In the 2024 cycle, I suspect the reason the 135 democrat house politicians received significantly more (on average) is because Israel likely feel it costs more to buy their opinions on this topic. It has been turned into a political issue with Trump aligning with Netenyahu and increasing US involvement/responsibility for the events taking place over there.

The large shift in US citizen perspectives on the Israel/Palestine conflict has only occurred recently in spite of Israel efforts to control the narrative. A big factor for this is that the genocide is essentially being 'livestreamed' by Palestinian reporters (many since murdered) and civilians.

The reason western countries such as Australia, the UK, France etc have begun standing against the carte blanche US position is because the US has lost almost all of its credibility and soft power under Trump. Without the same level of political influence and propaganda, non-US countries aren't so ideologically challenged when confronted with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

As for Bill Maher's thoughts, well I think they're in poor taste.
First of all, Bill Maher's comments demonstrate a classic case of whataboutism to try discredit the situation in Palestine. Second of all, even if the conversation got defelcted onto the Nigerian case, the death rate and US culpability is substantially lower when compared to the genocide in Gaza.

As a starter, Israel isn't even letting foreign reporters into Gaza.

Without anyone being able to actually investigate the extent of destruction, people currently can only estimate the amount of civilian deaths in Gaza. The currently discussed count of direct deaths from bombing, shooting etc. is 66,000. One thing's for sure is that they aren't in a positiion to clear up the rubble and count every death. Famine will soon pay its toll as well.

From the Journal of the British Medical Association: "In recent conflicts, … indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths.". The below is from an article which documents the estimates of researchers that applied this rule of thumb to the current death count, as well as their own estimates of the death count:

Using that same very conservative multiple of four indirect deaths to every direct death, the current death toll now in Gaza would be at least 252,000.​

​

Ralph Nader estimated that by June last year the Palestinian death toll was at least 200,000. “The undercount is staggering,” said Nader, …. “The US and Israel want a low number. Instead of themselves estimating — which they don’t want to do — they cling to Hamas’ [figures], and Hamas doesn’t want a realistic number because they don’t want to be seen as unable to protect their own people. So, they developed these criteria: to be counted, the dead must first be certified by hospitals and morgues [which barely exist]. “ The whole thing is one death camp now. It’s easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza,” wrote Joshua Frank.​

​

Adam Rzepka, a researcher at Montclair State University and a co-founder of Montclair States Chapter of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine commented:​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of traumatic deaths only — immediate deaths from bullets, bombs, and demolished buildings — in the Gaza genocide is currently more than 115,000.​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of deaths attributable to the genocide overall is more than 460,000.​

 

[Brookie1973]

I agree most on the left (amongst US citizens) tend to be pro-Palestine. Not so much the politicians.

I suppose that besides political leaders - who themselves all tend to carry differing opinions on topics - there's no actual spokesperson for the left. Bill Maher has expressed similar views for a while now, so what I can take from that is that Bill Maher thinks wxy on topic z.

I must've touched on this a fair few times before but as fun as it may be politics is not sport. There should be no 'winning', 'losing', just as the thoughts or actions of one person should not be conflated with the thoughts of his 'team'. Like with same sex / trans / abortion, people have different views for a variety of reasons; religious, cultural, political, social and even economical.

Economical is a huge factor in US politics (that text is hyperlinked to a page with full details). From the 2024 election cycle, the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte (AIPAC) is the 18th largest contributor (out of 40,455). They pay / contribute to 135 house democrats and 200 house republicans. $24 million was given to democrat house politicians (avg $178,000 each), while $18 million went to the republicans ($90,000 each). What's amazing is that back in 2016, the average AIPAC contribution to house members was $1160 and $500, respectively. Devil is in the details. money aside the US has been aggressively pro-Israel since about the 1960's.

In the 2024 cycle, I suspect the reason the 135 democrat house politicians received significantly more (on average) is because Israel likely feel it costs more to buy their opinions on this topic.

The large shift in US citizen perspectives on the Israel/Palestine conflict has only occurred recently in spite of Israel efforts to control the narrative. A big factor for this is that the genocide is essentially being 'livestreamed' by Palestinian reporters (many since murdered) and civilians.

The reason western countries such as Australia, the UK, France etc have begun standing against the carte blanche US position is because the US has lost almost all of its credibility and soft power under Trump. Without the same level of political influence and propaganda, non-US countries aren't so ideologically challenged when confronted with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

As for Bill Maher's thoughts, well I think they're in poor taste.
First of all, Bill Maher's comments demonstrate a classic case of whataboutism to try discredit the situation in Palestine. Second of all, even if the conversation got defelcted onto the Nigerian case, the death rate and US culpability is substantially lower when compared to the genocide in Gaza.

As a starter, Israel isn't even letting foreign reporters into Gaza.

Without anyone being able to actually investigate the extent of destruction, people currently can only estimate the amount of civilian deaths in Gaza. The currently discussed count of direct deaths from bombing, shooting etc. is 66,000. One thing's for sure is that they aren't in a positiion to clear up the rubble and count every death.

From the Journal of the British Medical Association: "In recent conflicts, … indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths.". The below is from an article which documents the estimates of researchers that applied this rule of thumb to the current death count, as well as their own estimates of the death count:

Using that same very conservative multiple of four indirect deaths to every direct death, the current death toll now in Gaza would be at least 252,000.​

​

Ralph Nader estimated that by June last year the Palestinian death toll was at least 200,000. “The undercount is staggering,” said Nader, …. “The US and Israel want a low number. Instead of themselves estimating — which they don’t want to do — they cling to Hamas’ [figures], and Hamas doesn’t want a realistic number because they don’t want to be seen as unable to protect their own people. So, they developed these criteria: to be counted, the dead must first be certified by hospitals and morgues [which barely exist]. “ The whole thing is one death camp now. It’s easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza,” wrote Joshua Frank.​

​

Adam Rzepka, a researcher at Montclair State University and a co-founder of Montclair States Chapter of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine commented:​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of traumatic deaths only — immediate deaths from bullets, bombs, and demolished buildings — in the Gaza genocide is currently more than 115,000.​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of deaths attributable to the genocide overall is more than 460,000.​

I think you missed the point. Maher is saying the democrats have been captured by the extremist of the far left, to the point where all democrats must agree with every loopy idea/position these people take. They have no moderate voice, hence no one in their right mind would vote them into government (unless of course you hate your country).

 

[h27272727]

I think you missed the point. Maher is saying the democrats have been captured by the extremist of the far left, to the point where all democrats must agree with every loopy idea/position these people take. They have no moderate voice, hence no one in their right mind would vote them into government (unless of course you hate your country).

Oh whoops. I literally just stumbled on a clip of Bill Maher before you posted that and thought that clip was the same.

Ironically, he still managed to peddle pro-Israeli content in both videos (despite yours not even being explicitly about Palestine). In my view that is fairly telling alone.

In my video he used whataboutism to try say Israel's genocide isn't relevant. In yours - despite trying to act like a middle-man / mediator - he still manages to describe the stance of opposing genocide as 'welcoming the intifada', associates it with 'crazy' and concludes that 'we're not doing it'.

And that's the bottom line, because Bill Maher said so.

In all of Bill Maher's commentary there, he basically just says that 'crazy' is when people aren't being cancelled when they disagree with Bill Maher's views. My point still stands. Republican politicians and aligned media saying 'far left extremist' time and time again does not make it true. Given his pattern of trying to undermine pro-Palestine momentum, I imagine he happily aligns with right wing media's 'radical left extremist' rhetoric that they've been peddling for years. Im all for peaceful methods, but the problem is that the perception of extremism is all motivated rhetoric being pushed 24/7 in online right-wing communities, through plenty of US media.

My last post I feel is still on a more important topic and is worth a watch (I just skipped the parts of the guy's commentary, so can just skim through to see the actual Bill Maher parts).

Edit* didn't find the original video i was referencing, but it's at the end of this knob's video. In the interests of your sanity i'd skip past his racist, hate-fueled, problematic commentary. He is a symbol of everything that's wrong with online right-wing influencers during this MAGA period.

Also, another video emphasising how heavily Maher is driven by pro-Israel motives.

 

[47MVEagle]

 

[Brookie1973]

Oh whoops. I literally just stumbled on a clip of Bill Maher before you posted that and thought that clip was the same.

Ironically, he still managed to peddle pro-Israeli content in both videos (despite yours not even being explicitly about Palestine). In my view that is fairly telling alone.

In my video he used whataboutism to try say Israel's genocide isn't relevant. In yours - despite trying to act like a middle-man / mediator - he still manages to describe the stance of opposing genocide as 'welcoming the intifada', associates it with 'crazy' and concludes that 'we're not doing it'.

And that's the bottom line, because Bill Maher said so.

In all of Bill Maher's commentary there, he basically just says that 'crazy' is when people aren't being cancelled when they disagree with Bill Maher's views. My point still stands. Republican politicians and aligned media saying 'far left extremist' time and time again does not make it true. Given his pattern of trying to undermine pro-Palestine momentum, I imagine he happily aligns with right wing media's 'radical left extremist' rhetoric that they've been peddling for years. Im all for peaceful methods, but the problem is that the perception of extremism is all motivated rhetoric being pushed 24/7 in online right-wing communities, through plenty of US media.

My last post I feel is still on a more important topic and is worth a watch (I just skipped the parts of the guy's commentary, so can just skim through to see the actual Bill Maher parts).

Edit* didn't find the original video i was referencing, but it's at the end of this knob's video. In the interests of your sanity i'd skip past his racist, hate-fueled, problematic commentary. He is a symbol of everything that's wrong with online right-wing influencers during this MAGA period.

Also, another video emphasising how heavily Maher is driven by pro-Israel motives.

Instead of cherry-picking, why don’t you list which of the examples quoted by Bill you do not consider extreme?
And FYI, the “intifada” line was a direct reference to a banner being held up at a pro Palestine rally in the clip, so any association between those two causes is entirely of the left’s making.

 

[h27272727]

Interesting

Science used to be about constantly questioning things. Now questioning is discouraged. Tells you all you need to know. Here is a top geologist saying;

1. Climate change (recent CO2 increase) is real, but not man made.
2. History indicates a natural cycle of CO2 rises and falls
3. Historical evidence indicates warming precedes CO2 increases, not the cause of it.
4. Current levels of CO2 nowhere near historical peaks.
5. The planet flourished under historical CO2 peaks.
6. Reducing CO2 may actually be more harmful than increasing it.

I’m not a geologist, so I can’t say whether he is right or wrong. But the problem today is that we are told we must accept the science, yet here is a scientist not willing to accept it. Debate should be encouraged, not prohibited.

OK, but lets first assess the most important aspect here: 'top geologist says"

It's in the video's title, sure, but who is this guy? Gregg Braden

Qualifications: Degree in computer science from Missouri University
University rank amongst US national universities: #102

Trump voting in Missouri: approx 60% in last three elections (possible political motives)

Self proclaimed as someone who wants to 'bridge science and religion' (despite a dichotomous relationship), Other theories of Gregg Braden include:

1. evolution theory not real
2. human emotions affect DNA
3. collective prayer can heal the body
4. 2012 Mayan calendar apocalypse theory with the mechanism being a magnetic pole reversal (real phenomena, but has happened 183 times in 83 million years (NASA))
5. free energy devices (fundamental laws of thermodynamics already suggest otherwise...)

Do I need to go further...?
If I was ordering through the drive-thru window i'd order a scientific establishment over a crackpot.

If someone wants to discredit the scientific establishment, the first step is reading mainstream research papers and textbooks. Then establishing their own hypothesis and determining an infalliable testing procedure (ie. one that will reliably disprove or prove their prediction regardless of potential bias). IF the findings are substantial then the verification stages can begin to prove the findings.

And that's been occurring since science began. Ideas change when the evidence is there. Unlike most, the scientific establishment knows perfect understanding isn't possible.

Until the scientific process is attempted, 'alternate' ideas fall under the category of being conspiracy theories and rightfully so. Gregg Braden hasn't broken the code, nor do I think he even really cares to try. Collects $ anyways without having to do the work.

 

[Brookie1973]

OK, but lets first assess the most important aspect here: 'top geologist says"

It's in the video's title, sure, but who is this guy? Gregg Braden

Qualifications: Degree in computer science from Missouri University
University rank amongst US national universities: #102

Trump voting in Missouri: approx 60% in last three elections

Self proclaimed he wants 'bridge science and religion' (despite a dichotomous relationship), Other theories of Gregg Braden include:

1. evolution theory not real
2. human emotions affect DNA
3. collective prayer can heal the body
4. 2012 Mayan calendar apocalypse theory with the mechanism being a magnetic pole reversal (real phenomena, but has happened 183 times in 83 million years (NASA))
5. free energy devices (fundamental laws of thermodynamics already suggest otherwise...)

Do I need to go further...?
If I was ordering through the drive-thru window i'd order a scientific establishment over a crackpot.

If you want to discredit the scientific establishment, the first step is reading mainstream research papers and textbooks. Then establishing your own hypothesis and determining an infalliable testing procedure (ie. one that will reliably disprove or prove your prediction regardless of potential bias). IF the findings are substantial then the verification stages can begin to prove phenomena. Until that process is attempted, 'alternate' ideas fall under the category of being conspiracy theories.

I thought that would be the approach you would take. Does he need to live in a Democrat state to have any validity?

 

[h27272727]

I thought that would be the approach you would take. Does he need to live in a Democrat state to have any validity?

I just finished editing my post but clarified at the end. He hasn't actually engaged in the scientific process. He has an idea (hypothesis), looks at some data (computer science) and ends up circling back to the same hypothesis.

Forming a hypothesis is step one in the scientific process. But the only important parts are the testing methodology, results and subsequent conclusions.

 

[h27272727]

Instead of cherry-picking, why don’t you list which of the examples quoted by Bill you do not consider extreme?
And FYI, the “intifada” line was a direct reference to a banner being held up at a pro Palestine rally in the clip, so any association between those two causes is entirely of the left’s making.

Correct my wording was poor on the intifada comment.

Globalise the Intifada: "Globalize the intifada" is an anti-Zionist slogan used by some pro-Palestinian activists to advocate for international support for Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation

I was meant to point out that he was associating 'globalise the intifada' with being some invasive force. Wrote off public opposition to genocide as some ridiculous, outrageous idea. Paired up with his past support for Israel's actions, the picture starts painting itself.

I don't feel I cherry picked, nor did I say his opinions were extreme.

The part I found extreme was that he was labelling people as 'crazy' / discrediting them for simply not agreeing with him. He may view those topics as black and white, but others don't. So be it.