tobetrained

@SDCumPup To continue a discussion of your points, separate from my comment you quoted, I asked AI to list examples of other actions with claims of breaking the War Power Resolution: -- start snippet of AI response -- Richard NixonBombing in Cambodia1970Initiated airstrikes without Congressional approval. Ronald ReaganInvasion of Grenada1983Conducted military action without prior consultation. Bill ClintonAirstrikes in Kosovo1999Launched military action without Congress voting on it. George W. BushInvasion of Iraq2003Approved after a Congressional resolution, but initial actions were deemed rapid deployment. Barack ObamaMilitary intervention in Libya2011Engaged in military operations without Congressional authorization. Donald TrumpStrikes against ISIS2017Conducted strikes without explicit approval from Congress. Joe BidenMilitary action in Afghanistan2021Continued military operations without fresh congressional authorization post-withdrawal. General Observations Frequency: Presidents have often circumvented the War Powers Resolution, claiming the need for swift military action as a rationale. Political Consequences: While some presidents have faced criticism, others navigated these actions without major political fallout. Legal Challenges: Congress has occasionally challenged presidential actions, but courts have often avoided ruling on such matters, invoking separation of powers. -- end snippet of AI response -- Also, there can be a technical different in military vs. anti-terror-related. Lip service or not, if we quote law, it matters. I also made comment on Jan 8 relating to Congress' continued delinquency of authority on the issue: "It takes extreme behavior to create change, right. Here's a possible benefit: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-trump-on-venezuela-00716127 Congress has spent decades abdicating its authority then grandstanding on outcomes, for electoral purposes. Maybe, just maybe, they will get their act together now and reclaim their constitutional duty." Republicans terminated that this week as Democrats have done for their Presidents before them. Bipartisan idiocy there. Over-riding much of your international law argument is that Maduro was not recognized by the US and many other countries as the rightful leader on Venezuela. He stole the last election and was illegitimately in his position. As well, @Rillion's point probably holds for your 2nd and last point. But I would add on this and so much more: I know it's hard, but we need to stop looking at the world through this Trump lens. For those that hate him, and there's plenty of reason to do so, acting and reacting this way is his goal: to make himself the center of attention.

For instance, Trump's healthcare plan includes money in spending accounts. He will tout this with his name. Obama used stimulus checks in a similar manner by "touting money in your bank accounts." Political ideologues will hate one of those two statements. But, that's tyranny and moves us closer and closer to populism.

Maybe we're getting to a real point of differentiation here. I don't believe in those things, social welfare, healthcare as a right. Too many times in history either tyrants or political parties have used government spending for political support. Tyranny can come from an individual or group/political party. So political altruism is not subjective, in these two cases anyway. As I've said before, as a Centrist, I accept things I don't like. I don't demand purity.

@SDCumPup OK. But can you let me know why you're responding to my quoted comment with that info?

I'll leave it simply as "government should facilitate a pluralistic democratic society as efficiently as possible." That would be the answer domestically. Beyond that, add "...and unflinchingly promote our interests internationally." I don't believe in political altruism. People can be altruistic as it's their choice. A government, esp. a representative government, has no business in altruism. That's about values and beliefs. Those have no place in a government for a pluralistic society -- values and beliefs can contradict across its population. key word above is "facilitate" and not "do."

I implied that from "we the people" statement as well as the statements on representation. All of those are statements about democracy. But this is where I was going relative to the overall comments you summarized here: The word "ideals" are highly subjective as well as standards. For instance, the way you started the convo: The term "inclusion" is a modern leftist ideological term. Social conservatives would replace that with "god-fearing" or some such thing. Both imply "those that are like me or think like me" -- and I'm 100% sure that's not your intent, given past convos. The term that's gotten lost is "pluralistic society" as that -- dare I say -- is inclusive, in this case of people "who do not think like me." This is not semantics. You talk about standards and measuring success. If your finger is on the ideologically scale then the measured outcome is different.

I understand the argument. I just don't think it's as simple as this. Consider two modern examples: Iraq. The Iraq war (start 2003) is considered a failure. Yet, the end result removed a dictator -- one of the "strong men" you reference above -- and delivered a to-date lasting democracy to the country. Egypt. The Arab Spring, wrongly simplified in the West as pro-democracy, brought democracy to Egypt by ending military rule. Yet, the popular will was to bring a religiously oppressive party to power -- the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi. Short of it, the military reclaimed leadership, executed Morsi, are still in power today, and the average Egyptian is much more free than in the short-lived democracy. Democracy is as fragile as any form of government. Democracy has regularly failed to extremes of populism.

The problem with this topic and conversation is Trans is an idea and not biology. If that offends, please see HRC glossary [think before following links] https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Competition in sport is typically, but not universally, driven by body size. Body size impact is independent of gender, but highly related given the happenstance of current-state evolution in human size. Here's an analysis the French RMES, Institut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Epidémiologie du Sport published here by National Institute of Health: [think before following links] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3761733 It should be noted, it's not just gender. There are weight classes in combat sports for this very "body size" reason, i.e., heavyweight, featherweight, etc. in boxing. Tangential point: In some species, the female is larger and more athletic (e.g. big cats) as they are the hunters while males scavenge. As well, in non-movement sports there is little difference between gender, e.g., Archery: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_archery I would hope the Supreme Court keeps those born to a certain body types separate. If not, why would we have women's sports? Physical size is not an idea. I understand @PozBearWI Battle of the Sexes comment. But it's modern equivalent just happened when the world's number one woman -- playing at her career peak -- played a man well past his prime and currently very lowly ranked. He beat her fairly easy. Pre-match discussion [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/c1e4dej01yeo Match results [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/cqlkqxnvdweo This brings up a massive equal pay argument which I will not get into now.

I can't see the article, no NYT subscription. But, for instance, the US does not acknowledge ICC...many administrations, multiple from both parties. At least in some small part, this is nothing new...he just says it in his bloviated way. On a good note, the "new" Venezuela gov't has begun to release (political) prisoners. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mkwl2g499o

This convo was before my time here. So @hntnhole did this come true?

Sorry, the last part of last message (Greece) was method but no rationale. The point of the mixing was to force people from different locations, parties, classes, etc into new groups...to then force communication and conversation.

I think that's just a bad word choice on my part. But not sure best. "belief," "think more important," "preference." That sort of thing. And, yes, to a degree it's about balance in how to do that. Like China, culture norms are based on a conservative philosophy but its political structure, Communism, is based on the collective. Or Europe, most countries have socialistic/collective tendencies but seethe at the idea of losing their individual (country) status. The "boring" topic here would be healthcare. We do the balance, the collective via insurance (some go for co-opts instead) while allowing private market to drive innovation. There have been many attempts to drive this -- starting in ancient Greece. To translate a method, the analogy would be -- an electoral college where random (or almost random) members of across states would be grouped in 700k+ people instead of the geographic allocation now based on state-level district appropriation. But it makes more sense for a population in a single city-state.

pardon, what's SD? I only know that as South Dakota...and fairly sure it's not what you mean. 😀 In your premise, I think where we gotten lost is in using political outlook as a form of identity. It's not. Take the broader community of this site in relation to WeHo pride flag a decade+ ago [think before following links] https://wehoonline.com/weho-council-defers-manager-city-hall-flags-rainbow-flag-may-come/ A very liberal/progressive group argued against this, to preserve their culture where WeHo is a "gay city" (I'm simplifying). That preservation attempt, to conserve, is conservatism. It's no different than what Christians or other religious groups do...or others under any label. But more broadly, and excluding identity, the concepts are as old as philosophical thought. In that sense, they're very important. Do you believe in the individual, or Do you believe in the collective The problem is both above require principled responses and behavior. Good luck on that. I've said this elsewhere: east Asian philosophies (e.g., Confucianism) are predicated on the individual. Even though the Greek created democracy (as we know it), philosophers of the day hated it, read: Plato's The Republic where he describes his Ideal State.

Free speech is a good thing. But thick skin to handle those who will call you out while exercising their right free speech is also important.

It takes extreme behavior to create change, right. Here's a possible benefit: [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-trump-on-venezuela-00716127 Congress has spent decades abdicating its authority then grandstanding on outcomes, for electoral purposes. Maybe, just maybe, they will get their act together now and reclaim their constitutional duty.