I sincerely think it’s broadly accurate - that, for the Republicans and especially for Trump, (most) every accusation is a confession.

There’s a simple psychological element to it, most often illustrated by moralists who rail against perversion of one form or another, only to be revealed to be perverts.

There’s another aspect to it though, and I think this is more often the case with Trump specifically - it’s a way to proactively undermine someone else’s accusation against you. If you can get your accusation out there first, then they end up sounding sort of like a child saying, “I know you are but what am I?”

If we’re going to go all conspiratorial, here’s my theory:

Both campaigns are dealing with old men with diminished faculties.

There’s some drug cocktail(s) that both campaigns have been using to pep the doddering old farts up for public appearances.

If you’ll remember, very shortly before the debate, the accusation that “Biden’s on drugs” made the rounds, and Trump made some noises about demanding a drug test.

For some reason - possibly fear, possibly determination in the face of a challenge, possibly a subtle communication that the Trump campaign had some hard evidence they would, if pushed, release publicly - that led to the Biden team withholding his customary drug cocktail.

Trump, meanwhile, was dosed to the eyeballs.

And that was the contrast we saw - Trump was on drugs, while Biden, for whatever reason, for that night alone, was not.

Remember - for the Republicans broadly and especially for Trump, every accusation is a confession.

None.

I think that the exact measure of whether or not a war is justified is whether or not people are willing to fight it.

It’s very rare for a war to be a direct threat to the people. That’s generally only the case in a situation like Gaza, in which the invaders explicitly intend to not only take control of the land, but to kill or drive off the current inhabitants.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

So the war is generally not fought to protect and/or serve the interests of the people directly, but to protect and/or serve the interests of the ruling class. And rather obviously, the ruling class has a vested interest in the people fighting to protect them and/or serve their interests. But the thing is that the people do not necessarily share that interest.

And that, IMO, is exactly why conscription is always wrong. If the people do not feel a need to protect and/or serve the interests of the rulers, then that’s just the way it is. That choice rightly belongs to the people - not to the rulers.

Right. Go back and reread it - that’s what I said.

I’m fully aware that the DNC is under no legal mandate to operate legitimately or honestly.

And that’s rather obviously entirely irrelevant.

In point of fact, if the legal standing of their actions is the only thing that matters, as you imply, then the entire notion that Russia willfully acted to harm them collapses. How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

If, on the other hand, we stick with the way that things have been presented by the DNC itself - that Russia willfully acted to bring them harm - then rather obviously even they are taking the position that the legal status of their actions is irrelevant.

Go ahead and pick either one - I don’t care. Either there was nothing wrong with their actions, in which case they could not be harmed by having the details of their actions leaked, or they were harmed by the the leak of the details of their actions, in which case their actions were self-evidently judged to be wrong, and the legal standing of them is irrelevant.

Literally, officially, it’s now entirely legal under federal law for officials to accept and even solicit bribes for specific services rendered, just so long as they do it after, rather than before, the service is rendered.

They aren’t even pretending to be a legitimate court of law any more - they’re just a rubber-stamping service for the oligarchy.

That’s pretty much what it seems to amount to.

All of the focus has been astroturfed onto the fact that the leaks came from Russian sources, and away from the content of the leaks. The clear (though of course unstated) implication is that the wrong isn’t the DNC’s corruption, but Russia’s self-serving exposure of that corruption.

I’ve never bought this spin.

Certainly Russia had a hand in getting the leaks to Wikileaks, and certainly because they had an obvious vested interest in the US electing Putin’s sycophant Trump.

But I’ve never seen or heard of any specific evidence that any of it was “disinformation” - just the repeated unsubstantiated claim that it was. It appears to be exactly what it looks like - a detailed record of the DNC’s overtly fraudulent maneuvering to torpedo the Sanders campaign in order to ensure the nomination of Clinton, or more precisely, to torpedo the campaign of a sincere progressive who would likely threaten the ongoing flow of big donor soft money in order to ensure the nomination of a transparently corrupt neo-lib who could be counted upon to serve establishment interests and keep the soft money flowing. And notably, early on that was how the DNC treated it themselves, even going so far as to issue a public apology to the Sanders campaign “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

So what it actually all boils down to was that the DNC really was acting in a manner contrary to the public good, driven by their own greed and corruption, and the fact that Russia had a hand in exposing that in order to serve their own interests doesn’t alter that fact.

No matter how one slices it, the bulk of the blame for the whole thing rests squarely on the DNC. Yes - it served Russian interests to reveal the information, but had the DNC simply been operating in a legitimate, honest and neutral way, instead of self-servingly and dishonestly, there would’ve been nothing to reveal.

I would agree that Americans need to make “informed decisions” in the upcoming election - for instance, they need to be “informed” of the fact that one of the candidates is a convicted felon.

And on another note, here’s that “politically motivated” thing again.

Just as I noted the other day, when Alito trotted it out, how is there even a notion that it matters?

Let’s just run with the assumption that the prosecution was “politically motivated.” So what? The trial worked exactly the way a trial is meant to work - the jury heard the evidence and rendered a verdict based on the evidence.

What on earth does the supposed motivation of the prosecutor have to do with anything?

Ah yes - the man who still has to have the vote rigged even after arranging for the murders of his opposition speaks on democracy…

Israel has rather obviously been using the attention on Gaza as cover for stepping up their efforts in the West Bank, even going so far as distributing automatic weapons to the illegal settlers, with which the settlers then entirely unsurprisingly went on a murderous rampage.

Just another aspect of the profound evil of Zionism.

Seriously - how can any person be so brazenly and thoroughly warped?

I can only assume that, like so many of the fabulously wealthy, she’s profoundly mentally ill, such that she really can’t grasp the enormous human cost that fulfilling her petty, selfish and ultimately pointless desires would entail. It can only be the case that she genuinely can’t grasp the fact that the millions of people who would be made to suffer or die for this are actual people - actual beings with lives and loved ones who are every bit as important to them as hers are to her.

It’s either that or she’s genuinely evil, in the purest sense of the word, and on a scale the world has rarely seen.

So which is it Ms. Adelson? Are you insane or simply evil? There’s absolutely no doubt - none at all - that it’s one or the other.

I don’t think we can say, since it’s possible (likely?) that his premises aren’t even true.

Israel has already trotted out all of the same “mistakes were made” rhetoric, and certainly if they haven’t already, they will state that they’ll try to learn from it to make changes. So there’s really no difference as far as that goes

The biggest difference I see between the incidents is only relevant to Americans - then it was our government controlling the narrative at home, and now it’s a foreign government, failing to control the narrative abroad.

I have little doubt that the narrative about Gaza that Israelis are being fed now is roughly the same as the narrative Americans were being fed about Iraq and Afghanistan, which at least leaves the possibility that the actual underlying realities were and are also roughly the same. And if so, what Kirby is actually doing is not comparing the incidents and responses in and of themselves, but essentially just playing off of the differences between the version the people at home get and the version outsiders get - depending on Americans actually believing the American rhetoric then, even as they don’t believe the Israeli rhetoric now. That’s really the only way you end up with the notion that America sincerely did regret it and admit to it and set about making changes, rather than just, as Israel is doing now (from an outside perspective) paying lip service to all of that.

So what he’s actually possibly demonstrating, certainly inadvertently, is that the US was just as full of shit then as Israel is now.

So basically the US government is a gigantic Trump - rising up in self-righteous fury at the very idea that anyone might dare to charge them for the crimes they’ve brazenly committed.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to be so morally bankrupt.

Clearly, they know that what they’re doing in Gaza is evil, and they know that the only hope they have of evading the entirely justified condemnation of the rest of the world is to hide it.

History will not judge them kindly. No matter what they do, they’re not going to be able to hide the evidence of their evil forever.

No surprise there.

Israel’s actions in Gaza are morally indefensible.

So its defenders cannot, and for the most part don’t even bother to try to, sincerely engage with criticism.

Instead, they rely on diversions, misrepresentations, character assassination, censorship, intimidation, harassment and violence, simply because that’s all they have.

Naturally.

There are two main ways in which people can try to further a political position they’ve taken - they can either argue for the position or they can attempt to discredit those who argue against it.

If the position they’re trying to further is so illogical or immoral that they can’t frame any arguments in its favor, then attempting to discredit its opponents is the only thing they have left.

On brand.

How deliciously ironic that this is paywalled.

I never really liked Reddit. I avoided it for a long time, but finally relented and grudgingly signed up in 2011.

I was always on the lookout for a new home, and would follow links to any place that looked promising, but none of them ever panned out - they were always too dead or too narrowly focused or too shitty or behind a paywall or something. And I’d go back to Reddit.

Immediately after Spez’s petulant AMA, I happened on a link to join-lemmy.org. I was especially eager to find a different forum then, just because Reddit was set to get much worse much more quickly and the CEO is a twat, but I really didn’t expect anything of lemmy. I assumed that, just as with all the others over the years, I’d browse around a bit, be unimpressed, and leave.

Instead, I looked around and liked what I saw. And the more I looked, the more I liked it. And I just never went back, and have been here ever since.