Jentu

That doesn't mean that Israel controls the actions of the US. It just means they have similar interests. If the US wasn't fully supportive of these war crimes, they could stop providing weapons, funding, and intelligence to Israel. Hell, they could even instigate a coup and abduct Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir. Trump plays a convenient fall-guy for the empire but they won't get rid of him so long as he's useful. Should these wars end horribly for the capitalists in the US, getting rid of trump (likely with the epstein files as the reason) serves to reinforce people's shared belief that the US has bad individuals, but the system itself is fine since it can remove bad individuals. No need to consider that this system creates people like Trump, then puts them into power when necessary.

Why do foreign leaders need to be pulling the strings for the US to do what it always has done? Seems like that framing is trying to deflect responsibility from the US.

Do you think I'm trying to convince you to become political or to change your ways? Or are you just imagining my responses without reading them? My entire point is there's no such thing as being apolitical in a political world. Every single action you take or doesn't take reinforces or undermines the current system unless you're in kindergarten in a heated discussion about your favorite color. Assuming you're not in kindergarten, you should be able to handle a bit of how various topics are impacted or are connected to politics regardless of your own participation in those discussions.

Not caring IS political. It's a political stance to be so disconnected from reality that one would prefer to bury their head in the sand and ask for advice on how to bury it further.

Not caring about the state of the world doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to it. It just makes you a negligent parent not wanting to talk about your kids every time you go to the bar.

Because being able to ignore politics is helpful to the liberal west who is trying to cling to status quo. It's not helpful to marxist leninists who don't like the status quo. This doesn't make .ml more political, it's just equally political reactions from different sides of an issue.

Assisting and seeking to ignore or cover up clear abuses only serves to shield the abuser. Whistle-blowing might seem like a more political response to abuse, but covering up abuse is also political.

The fact that you're so avoidant of the inherent politics of the everyday world is a reaction desirable to the status quo, which is itself political. Congratulations, your kind of politics is status-quo-enjoyer which kills countless people every year for you to remain comfortable and blind to politics.

Boss makes a dollar,

I make a dime,

Ignore the hunger,

Highlight the crime

The mental image of Trump in a Miata with a 5 point harness trying to figure out stick in busy city traffic is almost good enough to let him borrow it.

Quote from the appeals court ruling from Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. ...It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet Congress has directed such uses. While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has 'spiritual and psychological value' and 'inspirational quality.”

Try to sue them if you’d like, but there’s already precedent for this argument. Like I said previously, there’s far better ways to erode public trust (though the US is doing a pretty good job of that currently with funding multiple wars while people go hungry and their medical care is stripped)

[Leviticus 19:33-34]

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

“Ummm Christians? You’ve either got to abandon your anti-immigrant stance or change the Bible. Checkmate.“

This kind of argument accomplishes nothing. Anti-immigrant Christians will ignore or double down. Changing the Bible, like changing the design of money, has been done before and will be done again.

Why would lawyers have to bypass the law to protect capital if protection of capital is the law? IP lawyers aren’t doing back-alley deals to uphold the IP law they specialized in. But even if something did slip through, it doesn’t guarantee a loss for capitalists since they can buy the outcome they want or choose the judge that they’re friends with.

Could you please form your own arguments without using an LLM? Like what is your goal here? Is it just to make people see the lies of empire? There are better examples of that (not that giving people historical examples of the empires lies actually changes their minds about things if they’re comfortable with the status quo) Lies are an everyday occurrence in our government. Spending legal fees, time, and energy just for a pointed finger and a “Ha! Gotcha! Now you have to change your money!” doesn’t seem preferable to just changing the system itself without the help of the bourgeois legal system.

Yes, I know how the fictitious movie ends and the logic it uses to get there. But maybe actual lawyers know the law better than movie script writers or the hallucinating LLM you’re using.

The entire foundation of capitalism is based on property ownership. You think capitalists would slap their foreheads and simultaneously say “oh jeez we made an oopsie putting that line on our money and now we have to get rid of the foundational aspect to all our wealth and power. Guess there’s nothing we can do about it- bribing judges for outcomes that benefit us is something we’d never think of doing with our untold riches.”?

They’d abandon religion before they abandon property ownership. We’d be forced to swap all our dollars to UsCoin or whatever cryptocurrency if a court case ever were to threaten capital (which it wouldn’t because the basis itself is dubious).