America

[Mellsblue]

Out of interest, has anyone (other than Cashead) suggested this?

I could very easily have missed things in this interminable shifting of various goalposts; but isn't the feeling "he did a murder, but I'm not crying for the victim" not "I agree with his principles, therefore he should not be convicted of murder"
Has anyone suggested that, having been caught, he shouldn't stand trial? has anyone (other than Cashead) suggested that a jury should find him not guilty; not because of a convincing defence, but because they agree that the CEO was a bad man?

Puja wrote this:
‘Good trumps Lawful, every day of the week.‘

I also wrote that I wasn't advocating the wholesale overthrow of the rule of law, but hey ho.

The point I was making was not that we should replace the legal system with "I was doing good," but to speak against dogmatic adherence to the rule of law simply because it is the law and therefore correct. To say, "anything outside of the law is automatically bad" is facile.

Was this killing "good"? I am unsure. It may have done more, as an act of protest, to dismantle a wicked and cruel (yet entirely legal) system than any number of Michael Moore documentaries, John Oliver specials, or placard-waving/signature-collecting. Does the ends justify the means? That's a question for ethics professors and philosophers, but I do know that the answer of, "It was against the law and therefore no it wasn't," is far too simple and doesn't even remotely cover the situation.

Puja

That’s my entire point! Where is your line? You surely must have one. I’m not asking what ethics professors think, I’m asking what you think.
I’m working from the perspective that you think the rule of law isn’t sacrosanct so I’m asking what you think should replace it with. Like Dors’s (sorry for the comparison) demand that every Eng HC should be sacked as soon as they don’t produce a team that would beat the rest of the Milky Way in a winner takes all match, what are you replacing the current system with? It’s like the most fervent Brexiteer (again, sorry for the comparison) who doesn’t like the status quo but then soils the bed when tasked with replacing it.

[Puja]

Puja wrote this:
‘Good trumps Lawful, every day of the week.‘

I also wrote that I wasn't advocating the wholesale overthrow of the rule of law, but hey ho.

The point I was making was not that we should replace the legal system with "I was doing good," but to speak against dogmatic adherence to the rule of law simply because it is the law and therefore correct. To say, "anything outside of the law is automatically bad" is facile.

Was this killing "good"? I am unsure. It may have done more, as an act of protest, to dismantle a wicked and cruel (yet entirely legal) system than any number of Michael Moore documentaries, John Oliver specials, or placard-waving/signature-collecting. Does the ends justify the means? That's a question for ethics professors and philosophers, but I do know that the answer of, "It was against the law and therefore no it wasn't," is far too simple and doesn't even remotely cover the situation.

Puja

That’s my entire point! Where is your line? You surely must have one. I’m not asking what ethics professors think, I’m asking what you think.
I’m working from the perspective that you think the rule of law isn’t sacrosanct so I’m asking what you think should replace it with. Like Dors’s (sorry for the comparison) demand that every Eng HC should be sacked as soon as they don’t produce a team that would beat the rest of the Milky Way in a winner takes all match, what are you replacing the current system with? It’s like the most fervent Brexiteer (again, sorry for the comparison) who doesn’t like the status quo but then soils the bed when tasked with replacing it.

To be absolutely clear, I am not proposing getting rid of the rule of law. I don't have anything to replace it with because I am not looking to replace it!

I do not accept the premise that not condemning one murder, in one very specific context, means that one has to accept all murders in any contexts, or find a new system to bring in because you have abandoned the old one entirely. I don't have a line because the whole point of an exception is that it is exceptional and circumstantial and contextual. I cannot tell you exactly what gradation of crime I would consider to be morally justified, because there isn't a set 2D spectrum of Good vs Bad where I can draw a neat line and say, "That side's okay, that side's not."

And, as I've said a lot, but I feel like it does need repeating, I am not even sure that this case **is** an exception, as far as my personal morals are concerned. I may yet come to that conclusion; I don't know. All I can tell you is that I won't say, "Welp, he broke the law so it must be bad, no further thought required."

Puja


PS. I do appreciate the apologies for the comparisons. I am enjoying keeping this friendly.

[Mellsblue]

As I said earlier, I think unless you condemn the act you are giving it tacit approval whilst appreciating that is very subjective and black and white, but I think you need to be black and white in these circumstances. We obvs (!) don’t agree and you’ve not thought beyond this one incident, which is fine (in a non patronising tone) as it’s exceptional, but I really think that if you’re undermining/dont agree with the status quo then you should know what you want to replace it with. I’m therefore not going to get an answer of where you draw the line, no matter how many different angles I come from! I also can not agree that someone who states that ‘good trumps lawful’ does truly believe in the rule of law. Given that we’re debating whilst not agreeing the parameters of the debate, I think we should agree to disagree whilst admitting that I’m right

[Puja]

As I said earlier, I think unless you condemn the act you are giving it tacit approval whilst appreciating that is very subjective and black and white, but I think you need to be black and white in these circumstances. We obvs (!) don’t agree and you’ve not thought beyond this one incident, which is fine (in a non patronising tone) as it’s exceptional, but I really think that if you’re undermining/dont agree with the status quo then you should know what you want to replace it with. I’m therefore not going to get an answer of where you draw the line, no matter how many different angles I come from! I also can not agree that someone who states that ‘good trumps lawful’ does truly believe in the rule of law. Given that we’re debating whilst not agreeing the parameters of the debate, I think we should agree to disagree whilst admitting that I’m right

I think the disconnect is that I don't believe the rule of law is impeccable and insuperable and that there will be occasions where an unlawful act can be the morally correct thing to do, whereas you appear to be saying that the rule of law is above reproach and there is never a situation where breaking the law is the right action? Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your position, but that's what I'm reading from your posts.

Happy to leave it there with me being correct if you'd prefer.

Puja (24601)

[Mellsblue]

As I said earlier, I think unless you condemn the act you are giving it tacit approval whilst appreciating that is very subjective and black and white, but I think you need to be black and white in these circumstances. We obvs (!) don’t agree and you’ve not thought beyond this one incident, which is fine (in a non patronising tone) as it’s exceptional, but I really think that if you’re undermining/dont agree with the status quo then you should know what you want to replace it with. I’m therefore not going to get an answer of where you draw the line, no matter how many different angles I come from! I also can not agree that someone who states that ‘good trumps lawful’ does truly believe in the rule of law. Given that we’re debating whilst not agreeing the parameters of the debate, I think we should agree to disagree whilst admitting that I’m right

I think the disconnect is that I don't believe the rule of law is impeccable and insuperable and that there will be occasions where an unlawful act can be the morally correct thing to do, whereas you appear to be saying that the rule of law is above reproach and there is never a situation where breaking the law is the right action? Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your position, but that's what I'm reading from your posts.

Happy to leave it there with me being correct if you'd prefer.

Puja (24601)

I wouldn’t say any unlawful act but rather killing/assassinating someone given that is what the whole discussion is about.

[Donny osmond]

I am trying not to be sarcastic, cause what's "amusing banter" to me can very easily come across as "infuriating deliberate winding-up" when parsed through a text-only messageboard (and I would like to emphasise that the tone should be read as "friendly debate", at least from my side of things!) but that's not a great example given we're talking about America where guns were fairly famously involved in that change...

To put it in reductive D&D tropes, Lawful is important, but if there is a clash, Good trumps Lawful, every day of the week. To say Law must be supreme, regardless of the context, leaves you with Javert.

Puja

The discussion has moved on, and its been fun to read, but I would just say that yes, guns were involved ( in all honesty I'd been thinking of the process as it happened in UK - my mistake) but it might be considered that guns were involved precisely because a number of people thought they knew better than law makers about what was "right"?

[Puja]

I am trying not to be sarcastic, cause what's "amusing banter" to me can very easily come across as "infuriating deliberate winding-up" when parsed through a text-only messageboard (and I would like to emphasise that the tone should be read as "friendly debate", at least from my side of things!) but that's not a great example given we're talking about America where guns were fairly famously involved in that change...

To put it in reductive D&D tropes, Lawful is important, but if there is a clash, Good trumps Lawful, every day of the week. To say Law must be supreme, regardless of the context, leaves you with Javert.

Puja

The discussion has moved on, and its been fun to read, but I would just say that yes, guns were involved ( in all honesty I'd been thinking of the process as it happened in UK - my mistake) but it might be considered that guns were involved precisely because a number of people thought they knew better than law makers about what was "right"?

On the contrary - everything the seceding States did was ratified by their law-makers and passed by democratic votes. The law was perfectly clear on the matter.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I think the disconnect is that I don't believe the rule of law is impeccable and insuperable and that there will be occasions where an unlawful act can be the morally correct thing to do, whereas you appear to be saying that the rule of law is above reproach and there is never a situation where breaking the law is the right action? Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your position, but that's what I'm reading from your posts.

Happy to leave it there with me being correct if you'd prefer.

Puja (24601)

I wouldn’t say any unlawful act but rather killing/assassinating someone given that is what the whole discussion is about.

Well, the US justice system has shown repeatedly that killing someone is acceptable if it's the right people involved.

I mean, we're hearing all this outrage over a fucking millionaire getting shot, and meanwhile, we get another school shooting at around the same time, and it's business as usual.

I’m not defending the US justice system…

[Stom]

As I said earlier, I think unless you condemn the act you are giving it tacit approval whilst appreciating that is very subjective and black and white, but I think you need to be black and white in these circumstances. We obvs (!) don’t agree and you’ve not thought beyond this one incident, which is fine (in a non patronising tone) as it’s exceptional, but I really think that if you’re undermining/dont agree with the status quo then you should know what you want to replace it with. I’m therefore not going to get an answer of where you draw the line, no matter how many different angles I come from! I also can not agree that someone who states that ‘good trumps lawful’ does truly believe in the rule of law. Given that we’re debating whilst not agreeing the parameters of the debate, I think we should agree to disagree whilst admitting that I’m right

The problem is...it's not black and white. Sandy has labelled it terrorism, as an example.

The murder part is black and white, sure. Someone murdered someone else.

But if a random guy murders Prince Andrew, are you going to feel the same as if a family member was murdered?

We're not "conflicted" about this being a murder, but of a bad guy, so it's not bad. We understand the reasons, understand everything behind it, and believe that some good can possibly come out of an unlawful situation.

There is another point I want to make, something that took me a long time to get to grips with after leaving the UK.

The UK (especially if you're a middle class or above white man) is an incredibly lawful society. Incredibly so.

Once you live somewhere that isn't as lawful, like Romania, or the USA, your perspective can shift on this. It's not black and white, and taking a puritanical view on lawful/good is, in my opinion, naive. But that's not about this murder, that's a philosophical debate.

1) This is murder.
2) Don't really have sympathy for the dead man.
3) Doesn't mean I want anyone to be murdered or that I'm glad he was murdered.
4) Good does trump lawful many times.
5) That doesn't mean I want to go and murder all the "bad" people, just that sometimes people need to take a stand, and we shouldn't ignore that.

[Mellsblue]

As I said earlier, I think unless you condemn the act you are giving it tacit approval whilst appreciating that is very subjective and black and white, but I think you need to be black and white in these circumstances. We obvs (!) don’t agree and you’ve not thought beyond this one incident, which is fine (in a non patronising tone) as it’s exceptional, but I really think that if you’re undermining/dont agree with the status quo then you should know what you want to replace it with. I’m therefore not going to get an answer of where you draw the line, no matter how many different angles I come from! I also can not agree that someone who states that ‘good trumps lawful’ does truly believe in the rule of law. Given that we’re debating whilst not agreeing the parameters of the debate, I think we should agree to disagree whilst admitting that I’m right

The problem is...it's not black and white. Sandy has labelled it terrorism, as an example.

The murder part is black and white, sure. Someone murdered someone else.

But if a random guy murders Prince Andrew, are you going to feel the same as if a family member was murdered?

We're not "conflicted" about this being a murder, but of a bad guy, so it's not bad. We understand the reasons, understand everything behind it, and believe that some good can possibly come out of an unlawful situation.

There is another point I want to make, something that took me a long time to get to grips with after leaving the UK.

The UK (especially if you're a middle class or above white man) is an incredibly lawful society. Incredibly so.

Once you live somewhere that isn't as lawful, like Romania, or the USA, your perspective can shift on this. It's not black and white, and taking a puritanical view on lawful/good is, in my opinion, naive. But that's not about this murder, that's a philosophical debate.

1) This is murder.
2) Don't really have sympathy for the dead man.
3) Doesn't mean I want anyone to be murdered or that I'm glad he was murdered.
4) Good does trump lawful many times.
5) That doesn't mean I want to go and murder all the "bad" people, just that sometimes people need to take a stand, and we shouldn't ignore that.

I’m not repeating the same argument over and over again but to clarify, again, I’m not talking about feelings and I’m not debating your position - I was specifically debating with Puja. I’m stating that, imo, any murder should be condemned unequivocally and that the perpetrator should feel the force of the law regardless of any perceived ‘good’.

[Mellsblue]

Well, the US justice system has shown repeatedly that killing someone is acceptable if it's the right people involved.

I mean, we're hearing all this outrage over a fucking millionaire getting shot, and meanwhile, we get another school shooting at around the same time, and it's business as usual.

I’m not defending the US justice system…

The shooting of Brian Thompson is the result of a predatory for-profit healthcare system, which Thompson himself not only benefited from greatly - at huge cost to other, less fortunate people, fucking with them at their most desperate. Thompson, as CEO of UnitedHealthcare can go get doubly fucked, when they were also industry leaders in claims denials.

It's an inevitable reaction to a cunt that made a career out of profiting from misery and misfortune. Ken Klippenstein put it nicely:

"No shit murder is bad. The [commentary and jokes] about the United CEO aren’t really about him; they’re about the rapacious healthcare system he personified and which Americans feel deep pain and humiliation about."

You're the one being a scold at the general reaction of Thompson being shot, and your performative pearl clutching completely misses the point.

Some trans kid getting stabbed to shit by their peers? That's tragic.
Some black lady getting shot by cops because "sleeping at home while black?" That's tragic, and ACAB 4LIFE.
But some CEO of a health insurer that leads the industry in claims denials? Fucking lol.
Why do you think one might be considered different from others.

You're free to continue to pretend to be appalled at the murder, clutch at every last pearl on the planet. Meanwhile, the rest of us are also free to look at the death of a CEO and respond with "lol, and might I add, lmao."

Feel free to lol and lmao as I’ll feel free to think you’re wrong and you’ll feel free to think I’m wrong.

[Stom]

As I said earlier, I think unless you condemn the act you are giving it tacit approval whilst appreciating that is very subjective and black and white, but I think you need to be black and white in these circumstances. We obvs (!) don’t agree and you’ve not thought beyond this one incident, which is fine (in a non patronising tone) as it’s exceptional, but I really think that if you’re undermining/dont agree with the status quo then you should know what you want to replace it with. I’m therefore not going to get an answer of where you draw the line, no matter how many different angles I come from! I also can not agree that someone who states that ‘good trumps lawful’ does truly believe in the rule of law. Given that we’re debating whilst not agreeing the parameters of the debate, I think we should agree to disagree whilst admitting that I’m right

The problem is...it's not black and white. Sandy has labelled it terrorism, as an example.

The murder part is black and white, sure. Someone murdered someone else.

But if a random guy murders Prince Andrew, are you going to feel the same as if a family member was murdered?

We're not "conflicted" about this being a murder, but of a bad guy, so it's not bad. We understand the reasons, understand everything behind it, and believe that some good can possibly come out of an unlawful situation.

There is another point I want to make, something that took me a long time to get to grips with after leaving the UK.

The UK (especially if you're a middle class or above white man) is an incredibly lawful society. Incredibly so.

Once you live somewhere that isn't as lawful, like Romania, or the USA, your perspective can shift on this. It's not black and white, and taking a puritanical view on lawful/good is, in my opinion, naive. But that's not about this murder, that's a philosophical debate.

1) This is murder.
2) Don't really have sympathy for the dead man.
3) Doesn't mean I want anyone to be murdered or that I'm glad he was murdered.
4) Good does trump lawful many times.
5) That doesn't mean I want to go and murder all the "bad" people, just that sometimes people need to take a stand, and we shouldn't ignore that.

I’m not repeating the same argument over and over again but to clarify, again, I’m not talking about feelings and I’m not debating your position - I was specifically debating with Puja. I’m stating that, imo, any murder should be condemned unequivocally and that the perpetrator should feel the force of the law regardless of any perceived ‘good’.

I understand. But I'm saying that there is nuance, and that "unequivocally" can be interpreted in different ways.

The other part is what the force of the law looks like? Because in the UK, I wouldn't doubt he'd get a fair(ish) trial. But can we truly say the same for the US? Or if it were in Hungary? Or Romania? Or Thailand?

So if someone wouldn't get a fair trial under the law...should people follow the law at all times? Or should they break and/or bend it for the good of society, because the trust in that rule of law is not there?

Because it isn't that simple, however much you want to say it is.

[Mellsblue]

I’m bored of debating this to death with no one changing their mind. I’m also at family gathering to celebrate the new year so I’ve got loads of better things to do.
Happy New Year everyone (unless you work in the US private healthcare system )

[Mellsblue]

The problem is...it's not black and white. Sandy has labelled it terrorism, as an example.

The murder part is black and white, sure. Someone murdered someone else.

But if a random guy murders Prince Andrew, are you going to feel the same as if a family member was murdered?

We're not "conflicted" about this being a murder, but of a bad guy, so it's not bad. We understand the reasons, understand everything behind it, and believe that some good can possibly come out of an unlawful situation.

There is another point I want to make, something that took me a long time to get to grips with after leaving the UK.

The UK (especially if you're a middle class or above white man) is an incredibly lawful society. Incredibly so.

Once you live somewhere that isn't as lawful, like Romania, or the USA, your perspective can shift on this. It's not black and white, and taking a puritanical view on lawful/good is, in my opinion, naive. But that's not about this murder, that's a philosophical debate.

1) This is murder.
2) Don't really have sympathy for the dead man.
3) Doesn't mean I want anyone to be murdered or that I'm glad he was murdered.
4) Good does trump lawful many times.
5) That doesn't mean I want to go and murder all the "bad" people, just that sometimes people need to take a stand, and we shouldn't ignore that.

I’m not repeating the same argument over and over again but to clarify, again, I’m not talking about feelings and I’m not debating your position - I was specifically debating with Puja. I’m stating that, imo, any murder should be condemned unequivocally and that the perpetrator should feel the force of the law regardless of any perceived ‘good’.

So if someone wouldn't get a fair trial under the law...should people follow the law at all times? Or should they break and/or bend it for the good of society, because the trust in that rule of law is not there?

Final response:
Asked and answered numerous times - read through my responses to Puja.

[Stom]

Well, the US justice system has shown repeatedly that killing someone is acceptable if it's the right people involved.

I mean, we're hearing all this outrage over a fucking millionaire getting shot, and meanwhile, we get another school shooting at around the same time, and it's business as usual.

I’m not defending the US justice system…

The shooting of Brian Thompson is the result of a predatory for-profit healthcare system, which Thompson himself not only benefited from greatly - at huge cost to other, less fortunate people, fucking with them at their most desperate. Thompson, as CEO of UnitedHealthcare can go get doubly fucked, when they were also industry leaders in claims denials.

It's an inevitable reaction to a cunt that made a career out of profiting from misery and misfortune. Ken Klippenstein put it nicely:

"No shit murder is bad. The [commentary and jokes] about the United CEO aren’t really about him; they’re about the rapacious healthcare system he personified and which Americans feel deep pain and humiliation about."

You're the one being a scold at the general reaction of Thompson being shot, and your performative pearl clutching completely misses the point.

Some trans kid getting stabbed to shit by their peers? That's tragic.
Some black lady getting shot by cops because "sleeping at home while black?" That's tragic, and ACAB 4LIFE.
But some CEO of a health insurer that leads the industry in claims denials? Fucking lol.
Why do you think one might be considered different from others.

You're free to continue to pretend to be appalled at the murder, clutch at every last pearl on the planet. Meanwhile, the rest of us are also free to look at the death of a CEO and respond with "lol, and might I add, lmao."

The thing is...you're putting system and societal failure on the same level as the individual action. Because put simply, all those murders are bad. They're all tragic. But they're all different because 1) highlights a societal failure that caused a tragic incident. 2) highlights a system failure that caused a tragic accident. 3) was a tragic murder TO HIGHLIGHT a system failure.

So, yes, they are all murders. But when you get past that, they're not the same thing at all. So our reaction to them is less to do with the murder itself and more to do with the injustice of the system/society that was highlighted by the deaths. And I think separating that out is important.

[Stom]

I’m bored of debating this to death with no one changing their mind. I’m also at family gathering to celebrate the new year so I’ve got loads of better things to do.
Happy New Year everyone (unless you work in the US private healthcare system )

Enjoy your family gathering. I'm cooking for our gathering, so I've got more time on my hands

[Donny osmond]

On the contrary - everything the seceding States did was ratified by their law-makers and passed by democratic votes. The law was perfectly clear on the matter.

Puja

Well, two things have happened today. Firstly I've realised what I thought I knew about this part of American history, I didn't, so I've been down a bit if a rabbit hole after you posted this, so - genuinely - thanks.

2ndly, more darkly, after reading just a couple of the sentencing remarks from the Rotherham rape gang trial, I've moved closer to the view that murder might be understandable in certain cases.

[Stom]

The shooting of Brian Thompson is the result of a predatory for-profit healthcare system, which Thompson himself not only benefited from greatly - at huge cost to other, less fortunate people, fucking with them at their most desperate. Thompson, as CEO of UnitedHealthcare can go get doubly fucked, when they were also industry leaders in claims denials.

It's an inevitable reaction to a cunt that made a career out of profiting from misery and misfortune. Ken Klippenstein put it nicely:

"No shit murder is bad. The [commentary and jokes] about the United CEO aren’t really about him; they’re about the rapacious healthcare system he personified and which Americans feel deep pain and humiliation about."

You're the one being a scold at the general reaction of Thompson being shot, and your performative pearl clutching completely misses the point.

Some trans kid getting stabbed to shit by their peers? That's tragic.
Some black lady getting shot by cops because "sleeping at home while black?" That's tragic, and ACAB 4LIFE.
But some CEO of a health insurer that leads the industry in claims denials? Fucking lol.
Why do you think one might be considered different from others.

You're free to continue to pretend to be appalled at the murder, clutch at every last pearl on the planet. Meanwhile, the rest of us are also free to look at the death of a CEO and respond with "lol, and might I add, lmao."

The thing is...you're putting system and societal failure on the same level as the individual action. Because put simply, all those murders are bad. They're all tragic. But they're all different because 1) highlights a societal failure that caused a tragic incident. 2) highlights a system failure that caused a tragic accident. 3) was a tragic murder TO HIGHLIGHT a system failure.

So, yes, they are all murders. But when you get past that, they're not the same thing at all. So our reaction to them is less to do with the murder itself and more to do with the injustice of the system/society that was highlighted by the deaths. And I think separating that out is important.

I wouldn't call it "tragic."

I think any murder is tragic, tbh.

But it’s New Year, so have a good one!

[Puja]

On the contrary - everything the seceding States did was ratified by their law-makers and passed by democratic votes. The law was perfectly clear on the matter.

Puja

Well, two things have happened today. Firstly I've realised what I thought I knew about this part of American history, I didn't, so I've been down a bit if a rabbit hole after you posted this, so - genuinely - thanks.

2ndly, more darkly, after reading just a couple of the sentencing remarks from the Rotherham rape gang trial, I've moved closer to the view that murder might be understandable in certain cases.

Glad to've given you an edifying end to the year!

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Awesome news. Not even taken office yet, and the orange idiot is threatening to declare war on a NATO member. Trump has decided that the US needs to control Greenland for national security. Oh, and the Panama Canal as well. It makes Musk's antics of asking X followers if the US should invade the UK to liberate us seem slightly minor by comparison.

I hope this is more hot air that isn't followed through. But you sense that the broader administration will be more compliant this time, so some of this craziness will be looked at seriously.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The worst of US Healthcare:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ofiteering

[Son of Mathonwy]

Awesome news. Not even taken office yet, and the orange idiot is threatening to declare war on a NATO member. Trump has decided that the US needs to control Greenland for national security. Oh, and the Panama Canal as well. It makes Musk's antics of asking X followers if the US should invade the UK to liberate us seem slightly minor by comparison.

I hope this is more hot air that isn't followed through. But you sense that the broader administration will be more compliant this time, so some of this craziness will be looked at seriously.

Fascist checklist:
Promise the return to a mythical age of greatness,
Scapegoat minorities,
Expand territory,
etc......

[Son of Mathonwy]

Awesome news. Not even taken office yet, and the orange idiot is threatening to declare war on a NATO member. Trump has decided that the US needs to control Greenland for national security. Oh, and the Panama Canal as well. It makes Musk's antics of asking X followers if the US should invade the UK to liberate us seem slightly minor by comparison.

I hope this is more hot air that isn't followed through. But you sense that the broader administration will be more compliant this time, so some of this craziness will be looked at seriously.

Fascist checklist:
Promise the return to a mythical age of greatness,
Scapegoat minorities,
Expand territory,
etc......

1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
7. The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

Amazing. Does Trump (and the other neo-fascists) do this deliberately or is it pure instinct, arising from his narcissism and total contempt for ordinary people?

[J Dory]

Trump is increasingly unhinged. I'd also forgotten just how dumb he is, I mean, I knew he was dumb, but now he's back in the media spotlight we get to see it laid bare. The stupidity of the shit that comes out of his mouth. How oh how did we get here.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Trump is increasingly unhinged. I'd also forgotten just how dumb he is, I mean, I knew he was dumb, but now he's back in the media spotlight we get to see it laid bare. The stupidity of the shit that comes out of his mouth. How oh how did we get here.

A combination of the stupidity of the electorate and the stupidity of the Democratics.