pfife

But those words from Democrats didn't lead to insurrection. Why are we talking in hypotheticals?

Trump also claimed the 2016 Iowa Caucuses were rigged when he lost to cancun ted

So you're saying they did not engage in insurrection?

I guess if the problem is that the GOP will misappropriate the amendment in response, the solution isn't to pretend the amendment doesn't exist. They could and may misappropriate the amendment regardless of any precedent.

LOL. Apparently it's insurrection to disagree with the GOP.

How could other states like TN, FL, TX, etc follow this and remove Biden from the ballot if Biden has never engaged in insurrection against the US?

Imagine the Biden Crime Family after all of these SCOTUS precedents from Trump!

Grateful Dead - ****'s Picks Volume 4 Beatles - Sgt Peppers Beatles - White Album Pixies- Trompe le Monde Jane's Addiction - Ritual de lo Habitual Soundgarden - badmotorfinger The Who - Who's Next Sepultura - Roots Public Enemy - Fear of a Black Planet Bob Dylan - Times they are a Changin

Colorado Supreme Court says Trump isn't eligible to be president under 14th Amendment

Chris Christie brought up that poll yesterday in an interview on CBS and just take it with a grain of salt, it had a pretty low number of respondents and that gives a 5.5 -> 6 Margin of error, which is pretty large margin of error in political polling.

Sold. I think the issue for me is/was that the context of all of the comparisons was to take the event (9/11, Pearl Harbor are the ones I addressed), examine the responses in terms of civilian casualties, and then see how those numbers/rates/whatever compare to Israel's response to Oct 7, in order to make some sort of empirical determination in a historical context whether they were proportionate. In picking events in order to do this, the one where we dropped the A-Bomb, the only time it's ever happened, is obviously a skewed approach to take.

crazy I was seeing a lot of talk about 3 cuts next year

How long before they argue the constitution doesn't state that the president was the one that had to commit the high crimes or misdemeanors in order for the president to be impeached?

Sorry I'll just agree with you next time, obviously my mistake. a-bombs aren't really important part of WW2 anyways so I apologize there too

Because that was a central event that happened in the response to Pearl Harbor that you said was an apt comparison.

With all due respect, I have done no searching whatsoever for an exact match. I've only responded to two comparisons (9/11 and Pear Harbor) that other posters searched for, raised in the conversation, and began to flesh out. I do not see either as an apt parallel and have presented reasons why - in other words, continued fleshing out the comparisons just as you and others were and continue doing, including in the very post quoted above where you do so repeatedly. I get that you disagree with my reasons for declaring them not apt. That doesn't mean I'm searching for an exact match, I'm doing the exact same thing you are, fleshing out the comparison. If one is attempting to draw conclusions about the current war based on an apt comparison to Pearl Harbor, which is what we are trying to do, then it's incumbent upon the comparer to defend the aptness of the comparison to challenges to the comparison. Which you are doing. So what's the problem?

Yes, I did raise the question of Israel dropping the bomb. It would obviously be an aspect of an apt comparison. I'm not in agreement that the comparison is apt so I'm inquiring about that undeniable aspect of the PH response to those that think the PH response is apt comparison. If it's the case that the central rationale behind the PH response (dropping the atomic bomb) isn't applicable to the Oct 7 situation then it seems like the comparison isn't a good one and is not informative to the current situation.

Yeah, I only saw it once in the theater so far but want to acquire it to watch a few more times, I'm sure there's a ton I didn't pick up in the initial viewing.

Others stated the comparison was apt (it was literally stated that it was apt - that was the word used). I'm arguing the comparison not apt and presented multiple reasons why it is not apt. You liked this post arguing it was an apt parallel.

Side question, G2 you mentioned Oppenheimer movie - what were your thoughts on it? I wouldn't consider myself someone who was looking at it from a perspective of historical accuracy, I was looking more to be entertained by the historical story, and I loved the movie. It's one of the best I've seen I think.

To answer my own questions: 1) I do think Israel is doing some things to limit Gaza casualties, but not a lot. I think that means the comparison is not apt. 2) I am not sure the answer regarding it's own military casualties using the Pearl Harbor rationale. But assuming the comparison is apt, is it really preferrable for the US to send unconditional money to a military that is making decisions that are not minimizing it's own casualties?

OK, following. Thus, if the comparison of Pearl Harbor to 10/7 is apt, does that mean Israel is currently not considering Gaza civilian casualties, as you state was the case with US response to PH? If the comparison is apt, does that mean Israel is not doing what it can do to limit it's own military casualties?

Thanks for the correction.

Regarding the comparison to Pearl Harbor and the reaction, my understanding from history education is that the argument for dropping 2 hydrogen bombs on two cities in Japan was that it would end the war quicker and result in less civilian casualties and military casualties than not dropping the hydrogen bombs and trying to defeat Japan through a more traditional ground invasion. If we are drawing a comparison with Pearl Harbor and Oct 7, is there then an argument to be made that Israel should drop hydrogen bombs to limit civilian and military casualties?

It would be much higher than 9/11 or 10/7.