[johnQdeveloper]

> I can understand having the military in the streets, when the news is full of people waving foreign flags while torching vehicles in the streets.

Yes but the news (in the US) is a fully for profit organizations most of which are owned by the right-wing folks. (i.e. Much of the newspapers, CNN, Fox News are run by boards that are right-leaning)

They are intentionally pushing a narrative that the family I have in the area believes is simply a very small number of incidents that are nowhere near as bad as what is presented.

> This does not look like the military being deployed on Americans, rather it looks like the military being deployed on rioters. Whether those rioters are Americans or illegal immigrants really doesn't matter for the purposes of reestablishing order.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/poss...

I suggest you stop looking at this through the lens of an Israeli and do some research on the US system of laws :)

Deploying the military "on rioters" and whether they are "Americans or illegals" is actually quite important. Using the military as a police force is illegal and the only real open legal question is if using it against "invaders" who are not here legally is technically allowed.

You are acting like these people are Hamas, when in reality, they are nowhere close to even 5% as dangerous.

[susiecambria]

And the media and federal government citing the waving of foreign flags is another distraction.

As Americans, and people living in the USA, we are allowed to do this. It's a Constitutional protection.

Again, all of this is a distraction from what the prez is doing.

[johnQdeveloper]

Correct. But for some reason "flags" and "not white/christian/jewish" somehow makes them the OTHER TRIBE and therefore the laws don't matter to conservatives.

I don't feel particularly safe in the US with the government making lists of people like me based on the medication we are taking.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2025-05-02/...

Its not new, but the centralization of these datasets isn't making me feel like anything other than a target.

[msgodel]

White/Christian and jewish are absolutely not the same tribe.

I think what we're running into is an issue many empires have run into in the past: once you scale things internationally people just don't get along. For some reason we thought computers and secular science changed that aspect of human nature (the same way Rome thought democracy and military doctrine did) and we're finding out once again people don't work that way.

[johnQdeveloper]

> White/Christian and jewish are absolutely not the same tribe.

They are similar enough that they are not actively being openly attacked even if hateful people exist.

See: The Israeli ITT agreeing with the American conservative position and making common cause. Etc.

That person would not have made those comments if he thought the American conservative position was jewish == other tribe == bad. Even if it is for a decent chunk of that population of conservatives which is why people I know are confused why they get asked if I'm jewish. Because they don't realize the person that they were talking to is a bigot going off my stereotypically jewish features.

> I think what we're running into is an issue many empires have run into in the past: once you scale things internationally people just don't get along. For some reason we thought computers and secular science changed that aspect of human nature (the same way Rome thought democracy and military doctrine did) and we're finding out once again people don't work that way.

No, that is buying into the framework the Conservatives use that globalism is the failure point.

This is not correct. The failure point is the number of gullible people who take things like waving foreign flags as reason enough to ignore the law.

*EDIT for the response below 'cause I'm lazy and don't feel like waiting and coming back*

No. You are arguing because 'everything fails eventually, failure is inevitable' but that isn't true in human lifetimes. Dozens of generations have existed in multiple empires without seeing the empire's end.

The fact gullible people eventually bring an Empire down just means, yes, thousand year empires do not exist but we've already had 3 generations live, grow old, and die entirely within the globalist period. So...for those people, it never ended.

You just want to be "right" without considering the other person's point of view as equally valid.

So, yes, technically just because something ends does not mean the end during a given lifetime is inevitable.

But yes, excluding misinformation and open deciet from the process of running a Democracy is theoretically the goal I would say. That requires none of the things you state because you seek to bait me into responding into "gotcha" extremist positions that have never been real or needed to achieve a goal.

Simply saying "You cannot intentionally lie and misrepresent a 1 square mile protest as a reason to break the law as the government who upholds the law" should not be a controversial position you feel the need to argue against, yet you do, like the Israeli above precisely because you've been lied to.

[msgodel]

>It's not a problem with people, just these people that I happen to want/need to incorporate.

You're arguing my point for me. People are what people do and the fact that people do these things (and consistently do these things throughout history) means that these large scale international empires are impossible to maintain. The problem may very well be conservatives, so what do you do? Exclude them? Put them in concentration camps? Now you're back to agreeing with me again.

EDIT: (for your response)

They don't bring it down "eventually" this happens very quickly. It's been known since ancient times that this happens (ibn Khaldun wrote about these things for example.) The problem is that "conservatives" from different "tribes" look very different (this is obvious if you've spent time trying to understand politics in foreign countries) so once you deal with the majority conservative group you just end up with a new one from the plurality. It's not an eventually thing, it's a critical mass problem. The only way international states work is if there's a single majority that excludes outsiders (like the Arabs used to and sometimes still do for example.)

[johnQdeveloper]

> They don't bring it down "eventually" this happens very quickly.

You are redefining terms to "win", m8.

Entire lifetimes within the safe confines of an empire is not anyone's definition of "very quickly" in English. Please educate yourself on what you are talking about and do better research.

There is no point in engaging in a one sided conversation with someone who is either being dishonest with himself or truly misunderstanding the topic in question to the point phrases are needed to be redefined to some absurd parameter measured in 60+ year spans as "very quickly".

Please understand you really should learn something on these topics rather than quoting stuff you clearly show a shallow understanding of that is unique to a certain political group and not even the intellectuals in that group would argue as you have.

*EDIT TO REPLY*

> I agree entire lifetimes would not be very quickly. I'm arguing once you have a plurality population these things tend to blow up within a generation.

?? but Americans were Christian white male conservatives as the majority during the generations in question and were arguably more conservative as even people like the Irish and Italian were "outside parties" like you view jews.

Are you arguing the American situation deteriorated multiple times in the 20th century (1900-2000) and somehow resurrected its Empire each time?

This is just a bizarre conversation at this point but I'm morbidly curious.

Btw, the official definition is 1890s to now for the American Empire as you are talking about. So...idk how you square it failing in the ??present day?? and later with multiple generations being born and dying during that time period.