Presto

My question was: why put so much power in the hands of one person, either the Speaker of the House, or the majority leader of the Senate. I was hoping that an American could explain it, but more than those positions are third in line from the president, and 'gridlock is good' I haven't seen.

Do your own work. Or don't.

I'm confused now. By you. I keep hearing from American politicians that America is the greatest democracy in history, the greatest democracy on earth, if not the universe. So what is it?

Yes, the majority leader of the Senate has the same power. The same anti-democratic power. And they're both third in line to the president. I'm not sure why that gives them that anti-democratic power, in a normal situation.

A question from a non-American. Why is so much power given to one elected politician (who may have been voted in by just thousands of his constituents), simply because he/she is the Speaker of the House? In this position you can refuse to bring proposals, or legislation, to the vote. Simply because you don't like it, or that guy from Mar a Lardo doesn't like it. Or your wife. Or the Bible commands you not to do it. Anything! It seems very anti-democratic, very archaic. And that quaint anti-democratic system is kept in place by both parties, of course. Because it gives them the opportunity to complain and whine about the other party: gridlock! the chaos Congress !, instead of just bringing legislation to a vote, and then pass it or not pass it.

Like you, om referring to the extreme right in Israel. I don't know how Netanyahu is thinking, but he definitely has that ' river to the sea,' idea in his head. Maybe more important, he relies on the extreme right in his cabinet, and that's why they're not kicked out after those guys (one of them a convicted terrorist) make the most horrendous statements.

You can add the words 'Jewish supremacy' and 'racism' to that.

I agree with that, although I've read somewhere sometime that there are more Palestinian dentists in New York than in Palestine. I don't know what it is with Arab countries. I know they discriminate against foreign labor, from SE Asia, on a regular basis. I know Egypt won't take in Palestinians from Gaza, because Israel will never take them back. It's part of Israel's ethnic cleansing, and Egypt is well aware of that. Jordan has a lot of Palestinians already, maybe too many. I sure hope this situation doesn't paint Palestinians as a people inherently evil, from infant to the elderly.

I agree. Lately, on the topic of war crimes and accountability, I came upon the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. After reading the whole story, I wanted to throw up.

You think Netanyahu didn't know where at least some of that money was spent? By Hamas? He supported that money going to Hamas, while being informed of the plans of Hamas, a year before October 7th. He just dismissed it, thought it would never happen. And then it happened. And suddenly the IDF had over 400 targets they could bomb in Gaza. So they had quite a lot of information about what was going on there. The question if Israel should have blocked money from going to Hamas is not a very good question, although it shows the control Israel always has had over Gaza, and the responsibilities that come with that. Netanyahu chose to support Hamas, for his own political goals. And this is the result. Btw, when the war ends, Netanyahu will be held to account by his own people,and probably end up in court. And not just for corruption.

I think Netanyahu should have worked towards a serious two state solution. But he doesn't want that. Instead he shows a map of Israel from the river to the sea, and pushes for more illegal settlements on the West Bank, while allowing the IDF to arm and protect terrorist settler militias. He supported Hamas not out of the goodness of his heart, but to prop them up against the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Hamas goal is clear, Netanyahu's goal is clear.

I know what Hamas says, over and over again. It didn't prevent Netanyahu from supporting Hamas, with money from Qatar. Do you have an opinion about the statements of an Israeli cabinet member?

Two can play that game. What's your opinion about an Israeli cabinet member calling for the total annihilation of Gaza? https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2024-04-30/ty-article-opinion/smotrich-must-pay-the-price-for-his-repeated-calls-for-genocide-of-palestinians/0000018f-3084-d0b5-a59f-31c5ca320000

The goal of the illegal settlements on the West Bank is clear. It's a slow version of stealing land, resulting in ethnic cleansing. Making a two state solution almost impossible. The disgusting part of those steadily growing illegal settlements is that America is basically ok with it. I don't know, maybe it's the influence of the evangelicals that plays a role here. One is certain: Biden, in his lifelong career as politician, has never lifted against the steady landgrab, and won't do it now. Despite the babbling about a two state solution. Some more info about America's role in this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/23/crowdfunding-us-residents-fund-settlements-west-bank?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other And about the two state solution and the ever expanding illegal settlements: https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/03/how-israeli-settlements-impede-the-two-state-solution?lang=en

You're probably not aware that after WWII, the Geneva Conventions were created, exactly to prevent civilian deaths. It's pretty obvious that Israel doesn't care about dead civilians, their easy escape is: all those dead bodies there were Hamas fighters. In their policies Israel has a 1 : 100 civilians to Hamas ratio as acceptable, when it's about an important Hamas leader. And since everything is in rubble when those 2000 pound dumb American bombs are dropped, who knows what really happened. A few days ago Piers Morgan had an enlightening interview with an official Israeli government spokesperson. That guy bravely stated how many Hamas fighters were killed in seven months, but didn't have a clue about how many civilians. Even after repeated pressing from Morgan. It's very revealing, but also a complete disgrace for the country of Israel.

I'm not talking about the UN. Anything the UN or UNSC does or says, Israel will give it the middle finger anyway. With the support of America of course. I'm talking about you suggesting that 143 countries should buy some land somewhere for the Palestinians. Israel has indiscriminately bombed Gaza, making it uninhabitable, while at the same time supporting illegal settlers in the West Bank driving Palestinian farmers from their land. Not long ago Netanyahu showed a map of where Israel should be: from the river to the sea. I call that deliberate ethnic cleansing, since the end goal is clear. You may call it anything you want of course.

Perhaps you should read Hanagumas post again, to which I reacted. And while you're at it, look up the definition of ethnic cleansing.

So you are actually supporting ethnic cleansing?

Offering another meaningless rabbit hole. No thank you.

There is nothing that stops a convicted (American) criminal to become president, if he gets elected.

I'm pretty sure that the tens of thousands of civilian deaths, half of them children, with the help of Biden provided bombs, will not help in clearing that mess. Nor does his willful ignoring of the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. This pitiful action of blocking a shipment, seven months into this war, can not erase what has been done. Like everything with Biden, he's so excruciatingly slow, and its too little too late. Or is this a weak attempt at gaining back votes he has already lost?

I agree with you, mostly. I may have a different opinion about Thai women, bar or non-bar. Like Trump himself, trumpeters like to brag, and I'm not particularly interested in their actual experiences, their actual physical appearance, etc. Although I understand that the mere mention of a porn star gets their engine running. So my post was just an observation.

Id say that words like 'woke', 'patriotic', 'anti-American' are thrown around at will, to fit the purpose of the thrower, which is bashing someone with a different opinion. And in America that tactic is used by both sides. In my opinion it defeats the purpose, and cheapens any debate.

Oh, you didn't say 'woke' is 'anti-American'?

'woke' stands for 'anti-American'. So anyone that has opinions you disagree with, is anti-American. Now at first glance that might be a very weird position to take, on the other hand, it perfectly describes the mess that America, or let's say American politics, have gotten themselves into. I don't know of any other country where the words 'patriotic' and 'anti' (fill in name of country) are thrown around that easily, just to bash someone with a different opinion.