I have not heard the slogan "All Lives Matter" from Trump Republicans in a while; perhaps that's because it so grotesquely misrepresents Trumpism. It never worked as a rebuttal to "Black Lives Matter (cf. Venn Diagrams) but now the slogan is the rebuttal to the Trump administration, for whom, clearly, MANY LIVES DO NOT MATTER. Immigrants, especially those with the temerity to criticize the president, can be deported, tortured, and killed, because they only matter as a means to consolidate power based on terror. It falsely dichotomizes the issue to say that the alternative to the current brutality is "open borders." We can have a lawful, systematic approach to immigration without resorting to the lawless chaos of a "policy" based on the premise that certain people have no worth and can be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law (cf. the 14th Amendment.)
@Loky__86 Thank you for demonstrating how, with human behavior, what you see is not necessarily what you get. Our real needs often get buried by our defenses.
Yes, there might soon be a regime change from within, but there is no guarantee that the government that results will be better than the regime in power. A coup launched by members of the military elite doesn't sound like a popular revolution. If the new leadership is even more oppressive, more aggressive, more intransigent than the old, that would hardly qualify as a fulfillment of the strategic goal of regime change.
@hughhewitt No, Hugh. El-Sayed refuses to conform to your false dichotomy that opposition to the war against Iran equals support for terrorism. That is not lack of clarity, it is a rejection of oversimplification.
@gypsiesheather1@Franklin_Graham@realDonaldTrump I agree that the Iranian regime is wicked, for many reasons, not the least of which is murder of those who dared to protest, but the annihilation of the Islamic Republic, as the president has threatened, will hardly help the Persian people.
@hughhewitt So a politician's past conduct is relevant to their fitness for office? Support the release the Epstein files so we can evaluate many leaders' abilities to lead.
Yes, for the "non-empathetic," the marginalized are only "pathetic," not normal people with normal aspirations to live and thrive. Contrary to you and Mr. Continetti, those who want adequate
housing, healthcare, education, employment, and a livable environment are not revolutionaries, nor would it take a revolution to accomplish these ends. Letβs start by being true conservatives and conserve the time-honored legal principle of βOne Person, One Voteβ through ending the disproportionate influence of the wealthy on elections and legislation. That influence is manifested, among other things, in the federal minimum wage remaining at $7.25/hour since 2009. Over those 17 intervening years, cumulative inflation has been about 55%, so the roughly 842,000 workers making minimum wage are earning an effective wage of about $4.00/hour. We also know the minimum wage exerts downward pressure on all wages because of the competitive advantage (from the employerβs point of view) of hiring minimum wage workers when possible.
I encourage you to start speaking up for those who do not already enjoy an outsized political voice.
My prayers go out for the rescue efforts, but also the prevention efforts of addressing climate change. You possess great influence within Christendom and could lead the repentance of the church. As you'll remember from your seminary studies, the Greek word metanoia, usually translated "repentance," means "beyond the mind." You could help Christians move βbeyond the mindsetβ of a counterfeit private faith that cannot even contemplate the public action required for a global crisis. You could help Christians move beyond the mindset that "God would not allow" a global crisis, or that God does perpetrate catastrophes to enact His judgment, instead of acknowledging the overwhelming climate science consensus of the connection between the burning of fossil fuels and increasingly severe climate events, like the flooding in Indiana, but also extreme heat, drought, crop failure, and sea level rise.
Let us join together as fellow Christians to meet the greatest moral challenge of our times.
If there is a universally recognized right to retaliate, then it is no surprise when both sides claim that right, which supplies the moral outrage to fuel endless wars. Each side views its own aggression as legitimate retaliation, and the other side's as illegitimate provocation. The cycle of conflict can be perpetuated forever by "justified" reactions to reactions, ad infinitum.
If we don't want endless wars, we should ask, not just whether retaliation is right, but also whether it works.
Your "absolute clarity" on the war against Iran is based on absolute oversimplification, as absolute clarity often is. This is not a choice between either wanting the freedom of the Iranian people, or hating Trump. That is your false dichotomy. According to Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based, non-profit news organization established by Iranian human rights activists to report on violations within Iran, 3,636 Iranians have been killed. Another estimated 26,500 Iranians have been wounded. For those people and their loved ones, their suffering is real, and your version of freedom is ethereal.
Two things can be true at the same time. The Iranian people don't deserve the suffering inflicted upon them by their own government, and they don't deserve the suffering inflicted upon them by the American and Israeli governments.
If the argument to unite behind this war is so compelling, then why did the president act unilaterally and not first make the case to Congress and to the American people to generate support? Pleas for unity after the fact sound like thinly veiled code for suppression of dissent, which was probably a main, stand-alone motivation for launching a war in the first place.