Denial, not just a river in Egypt.
You didn't even read the article. I'm also not going to create a Rumor Social account to go get them references. His exact "Rumors" were referenced there.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221204214848/https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109462304115605769

He deleted the original post, but it's obviously been heard, recorded, preserved. And the news caught it. And he even references it in his own reply.

So you don't like Snopes? Here are just a few of the other news articles citing the exact quote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-confronted-over-donald-trump-not-following-constitution/ar-BB1k2HNV
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/06/donald-trump/trump-said-2020-fraud-calls-for-termination-of-rul/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/03/trump-constitution-truth-social/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/us/politics/trump-constitution-republicans.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63851751
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-termination-constitution-1.6674050
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4168261-trump-called-for-termination-of-parts-of-constitution-in-december/

And my favorite:
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/media-buzz/why-trumps-termination-constitution-demanding-reinstatement-over-has-set-off-alarms

So, all fake news, right? He didn't say that at all? All of these sources are entirely wrong? Or you want to cover this with even more denialism?

He only cares about things that benefit him, and if the constitution of the USA is in his way, he'd burn it. "Preserve, protect, and defend" indeed.

Unfit.

He sounds a lot more with it than any recent Trump clip.

Trump whined yesterday that everyone keeps going on about what he said “during the insurrection”….you know, the insurrection that he says never happened…the insurrection he now says happened and he blames on Nicky Haley, who he thinks was leading the House in 2020. One of a dozen gaffs in that single speech.

The right has latched onto the fact that Biden misspoke and said “Mexico” instead of “Egypt” when talking about the president of the country on the Southern border…he named the correct president proving he knew what he was talking about more than Trump ever did on his best days.
Trump would be insisting ElSisi is the president of Mexico.

If you want to compare statements using the same criteria Biden looks pretty good by comparison, even if you forget he has a stutter.

It’s the first known endangered terrorist!
WTF Egypt!? That is one of the most confused ad campaigns I’ve ever seen, and it makes me want to boycott panda cheese, which I had never heard of before…I didn’t even know you could milk a panda.

I disagree with you on the "Zionists are all squatters" and related bits, but on the whole you've characterized alot of what is happening correctly. I can not accept though that 1930s and 40s Jewish Europeans seeking refuge amongst an existing community of Jewish Palestinians was the 'invasion' that Arab narratives claim it as.


That's also largely academic in the sense of what will happen. Israel is NOT so dominant that they can easily defeat Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Jordan or Saudi Arabia individually, let alone should they join forces. Perhaps more importantly, regardless of what the true comparison of military strength is, the neighbouring nations mentioned are NOT convinced. Al Jazeera spent the first two weeks after the attack crowing about how this proved how weak and ineffective Israel truly is and harolded the beginning of the end for them.

My two predictions:
1. Israel will continue to do anything they deem necessary to ensure the attack in October is viewed by Iran and the Arab world as another Naqba, rather than a victory.
2. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran and to lesser degrees Jordan and Saudi will continue channeling weapons and support to any and all militant groups near Israel(mostly Palestine) to encourage and ensure they continue launching attacks into Israeli territory in the same continuous effort they have for the last decades.

The worst losers in it, as have been for the last decades you've noted, will continue to be the Palestinian people. Angry young Palestinians will be armed , trained and recruited with foreign money to attack the Israeli 'aggressor'. Thus leading to Israeli reprisal, more dead Palestinians and more angry young recruits.


I think my biggest point of difference with you is I'm not content to ignore the absolutely enormous role of other nations than Israel in the plight of the Palestinian people.

Tragically it's all more complicated than anyone can really state, right? I mean, if you had a 30 book(10k pages a book) series solely on the conditions in the region of Palestine between 1930 and today you'd still have so much material to cut, you could limit all 30 books to only 1 sides POV.

The closest I see to shortcutting things, is trying view what is likely to happen in the future, and from that maybe what one might try and do.

The trouble being there's so little one can do. The reality is that Israeli military strength compared to Palestine is completely and entirely one sided, and thus Israel can and will do whatever it wishes to militarily. It's all their choice, period. In fairness to Israel, you have to note that Hamas as stated in their own charter, given that same power would've already cleansed the entirety of Israel and have created their own single state 'final' solution.

It's also not actually about Palestine vs. Israel, which should be obvious given the fact of Israel's military dominance. Israel IS really facing existentially threats of it's own, just not directly from Palestine, and instead from ALL of it's neighbours. That state of constantly requiring Israel to be capable of winning an existential war since it's inception has kept things in a perpetual state of near-war, and more often proxy-war with the Palestiniances as the pawns of alternately Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others depending which time and region we choose to look at.

Predictively, that gives us that Isreal can not, under any circumstances, accept conditions to exist where any party(in particular Iran as the main backer) views the "Al Aqsa Flood operation" as a success. That means Israel will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure that happens and Iran in particular views that operation as a mistake. Nothing the UN or any of the rest of us say or do can change that.

"This building is ancient, dating back to the 4th century BC".

Greece and Egypt called: "nice try, assholes!"

Eratosthenes actually knew from local lore that the sun shone directly down a well at modern day Aswan, in Egypt, on the summer solstice. On the same day at noon he measured the sun's angle using a vertical stick at Alexandria.

Well explained here: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene

I hope you at least extend a similar mistrust towards Nasser's Egypt and the Assad dynasty in Syria?

I know it's a stretch, but in wartime telling the difference between an American spyship and Egyptian one could be tough. Jacking up an American flag and using a different frequency for communications is something an enemy might be devious enough to think of...

This.

I get there is plenty of room to criticise Israeli actions and call them too aggressive. This is just not such an example, in any way, shape or form.

As vil said, this happened when Israel was actively at war. Nasser had blocked Israeli shipping and moved Egpytian forces onto the border. Israel then made a pre-emptive strike wiping out the Egyptian air-force, and then launching a ground offensive. The USS Liberty was running as an unmarked ship in the wrong place at the wrong time and Israel hit it too.

Israel knew it was a US military vessel or they didn't. If they didn't, it's highly possible they decided the unmarked military vessel was a threat and hit it. If they did, they decided it was a good idea to hit an American owned military vessel while starting/engaging a war with Egypt.

I can't reason out any situation where Israel thinks it's a good idea to deliberately kill and engage the US here, it's all bad for them. The most reasonable explanation is they attacked an unmarked military vessel in a war zone because they knew it wasn't their own.

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

I think I see things more jadedly than you do.

Here's what I see of the situation. On a nation state level, nobody cares about the Palestinians. The Palestinians only influence on the chess board is their suffering. All of their 'allies' like Syria, Egypt and Iran don't care about the Palestinians for anything more than making sure that they suffer, the greater and the more public that suffering the better propaganda it makes. Israel and it's allies only care about the Palestinians in so far as that same suffering makes them look bad and sways public opinion as well. The threat from the Palestinians is a police and humanitarian matter, not a military one.

So everybody with boots on the ground doesn't care about the Palestinians. The Israeli side will take what they want as long as public opinion isn't too onerous on it. The Arab nations will actively arm, encite and push the Palestinians from peace to violence at ever turn because it ensures they serve their 'purpose' of public suffering better.

I count exactly zero hope for a two state solution reached between Palestinian and Israeli's as equals. A future of the region where the Palestinian people are afforded a better future either in a province of Israel, or their own state created under terms dictated to it by Israel I see as at least an existent possibility. I honestly believe seeking something more is simply not a possibility because NOBODY wants it. The Israeli's don't, the Palestinians allies don't, even the Palestinians themselves don't.

You seem to think maybe the parties can be made to change their minds on that, but it runs contrary to their self interests.

Israel gains nothing by backing down and negotiating as equals for a two state solution.

Palestine's 'allies' actually lose out greatly in any resolution to the status quo because it currently ties down Israel and makes for great propaganda. They'd lose that and gain nothing in return but less suffering for the Palestinians whom they don't care about.

Palestinians themselves might be persuaded to change their minds, but the only ones swaying their public opinion are their 'allies' with a vested interested in making sure they continue to fight forever for all of Palestine and not settle for two states. Additionally, for all intents and purposes their opinions don't matter anyways because they lack the power to make a meaningful difference.

None of the above is my opinion on how I would like things to be, nor how I think they should be, but rather how I see it actually looking. Nation state actions can usually be stripped down to narrow self interest and naught else. The exceptions are failures of the state representation, like say a dictator choosing their personal interest over a national one, or a buffoon blundering off into idiotic random actions...

Here's a Canadian example:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/aly-hindy-salaheddin-islamic-centre

A mosque who's former founder has gone off to lead a team of Al Qaeda linked suicide bombers in Iraq. The mosque Ohmar Khadr's father brought their family to before relocating them to fight for Bin Laden in Pakistan. The mosque attended by the leaders of the largest terrorist ring Canada has broken up thus far. Other members have gone off to join terrorists in Somalia and Egypt.

The question of should we be setting up some manner of legal accountability for an organization that is clearly idealogically supporting these things isn't a clear and obvious, nope, nothing can be done. At least not any more than nope, nothing can be done is clearly the answer to the Vegas shootings.

1st World Problems.
"I made boatloads of money on youtube, but got so sad I had to quit to spend time with nature in Switzerland and Egypt."

Well, at about 1:39 he mentions Deuteronomy 7:15: "And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee."

I didn't bother looking for similarities in the constitution, because there's no way anything inspired by that is in there. Pretty sure he was just picking one at random and assuming no one watching the show would go to the effort of checking.

I know this is titled "Science in America", but what he's talking about is a global problem.

The whole "vaccines cause autism" nonsense was started in the UK. The Australian government is still willfully sticking its head in the sand regarding climate change. Only 8% of people in South Africa and Egypt accept that there is scientific evidence for evolution.

That said, it's worst in America, both in terms of degree (the number of people that don't accept science) and impact (the people in charge of the world's biggest economy are spending money on the wrong things).