The All Things Political Topic - Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

 

It does feel like conservative politics has shifted to a much stronger stance. Unfortunately I get the feeling from a lot of long time, entrenched Democratic politicians that this is a blip and bipartisanship can be restored with relative ease but I'm not particularly convinced that this approach is the best one Democrats can do. Though admittedly my politics have slid past the DNC as well and I am often not a particular fan of a lot of their **** either so... /shrug

Thats interesting you not completely ideologically behind the Dems anymore

If I had to explain my own political views based on the US definition of their politics I agree with things that both the left and right generally stand for at the moment. For example in summary 

The Democrats : I support LGBT rights, pro-choice and Obamacare but it must be optional for the states to sign-up. It cant be forced

The Republicans : I support border and immigration control, I dont support things like defunding the police, I dont support "CRT " and  other similar revisionist or selective history that I consider is " anti-white "  and I dont support most socialist policies. 

But most important I dont support any attempt to make the US more isolationist or to end its important role in the funding of institutions like NATO and its historical and important friendship with the EU.

What are your political views nowadays and how have they changed? 

[Gromnir]

not sure where the disconnect is. 

first, don't confuse gop goals with the motives o' Justices or legal scholars opposed to roe. sure there is overlap, but not in the way you likely believe. roe is a particular noteworthy example 'cause as has been stated previous, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, previous to becoming a Justice, were public critical o' roe. lawrence tribe, perhaps the most recognized Constitutional law scholar in the country, and a liberal firebrand nowadays, were excoriating the reasoning o' the roe majority and concurrences in the decade after it were decided. legal philosophy is not same as party affiliation... which is why justice thomas' fall has been so disappointing.  most Justices don't give a fig for politics, at least not where it conflicts with their legal philosophy.

also, as we noted already, republicans is not monolithic. mitch mcconnell did not want a real roe fight, even if he deserves as much credit for making the overturning o' roe possible as any Justice. mitch still won't talk 'bout the implications o' roe. what is ted cruz talking 'bout today? the leak. again, 'cause may have gone unnoticed, polls show americans as a whole is overwhelming in favour o' maintaining roe, and mitch and other republicans concerned with winning back Congress and the Presidency is as aware o' that fact as anybody. sure, to keep the evangelicals happy, folks who has shown in the past they has questionable party loyalty, mitch and other national republicans put on a good show o' fighting for the demise o' roe, but killing roe is bad politics given the fact it galvanizes typical torpid democrats (as trump's mishandling o' covid did) and recognizing that near 50% o' republicans in fact support some kinda right to abortion. 'course the 50/50 split is not a thing in many red states, which is why we specific observed national republicans were having a different pov o' roe compared to those in states such as texas and louisiana. 

yeah, we has noted how 'cause o' our curious republican system o' democracy functions, the far-right has gained increasing and disproportionate influence in the gop. american politics as a whole has become increasing polarized in the last decade. the republican party has struggled with keeping working class whites, but trump came along and changed the dynamic. the one signature legislative effort passed during the trump administration were a tax cut which largely benefited the rich. nevertheless, when republican leaders criticized trump for january 6 on the days following the insurrection, the following happened:

the thing is, is doubtful much more than half o' those folks calling graham a traitor wanted roe overturned. polls suggest is ~50%. 

again, so is clear, am not suggesting all republicans are disappointed by the prospect o' roe being overturned. particular for catholics and evangelicals who is convinced abortion represents mass murder on a scale measured in the thousands, overturning roe were a deadly serious issue and they will continue to fight in every state to undermine abortion protections. the thing is, other than a couple notable examples such as J. kavanaugh, thomas, and J. sotomayor, politics is a tertiary concern at best. and nationally, is no battle republicans wanna be embroiled when they maybe have 50% o' their own party supporting and democrats overwhelming oppose. is not good politics.

heck, even joe rogan expressed his support for a woman's right to choose, although he clear weren't educated as to what the right actual entails. nevertheless, rogan's curious brand o' politics resonates with a whole lotta young and male republicans, more so than does mitch mcconnell or marjorie taylor greene. republicans are divided on roe. is why it is not an issue most national republicans want to fight. 

edit to avoid a double-post:

while this kinda protest, as long as it stays on public streets and remains non-violent, is perfect legal, it is nevertheless unfortunate. the polarization o' national politics has brought us back to the bad old days o' the 1920s or 1850s. no doubt many believe J. Kavanaugh deserves this treatment, but consider your reaction if a maga crowd were protesting outside the home o' aoc or J. Sotomayor. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps so it is clear, as much as am thinking most republicans have not wanted a real abortion fight, and they most definite don't want it to be a defining issue in the upcoming midterms, am thinking it is too late to take a more moderate stance. roe being overturned means the gop politicians needs pick a side and is gonna be impossible to sudden go pro choice after public advocating pro life.  

Edited May 8, 2022 by Gromnir

[alanschu]

12 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Thats interesting you not completely ideologically behind the Dems anymore

If I had to explain my own political views based on the US definition of their politics I agree with things that both the left and right generally stand for at the moment. For example in summary 

The Democrats : I support LGBT rights, pro-choice and Obamacare but it must be optional for the states to sign-up. It cant be forced

The Republicans : I support border and immigration control, I dont support things like defunding the police, I dont support "CRT " and  other similar revisionist or selective history that I consider is " anti-white "  and I dont support most socialist policies. 

But most important I dont support any attempt to make the US more isolationist or to end its important role in the funding of institutions like NATO and its historical and important friendship with the EU.

What are your political views nowadays and how have they changed? 

Well, I have never been "completely ideologically" behind any party (Canada, or US, or otherwise). My slice of preferring Democrats/centrists was more in response to my distaste towards what I felt was an increased willingness for conservative parties to lean into the social conservative policies. I voted Conservative up until 2011 (when I voted for Canada's NDP party largely because my MP seemed like a decent person and I was voting for an opposition that wasn't the Liberal Party of Canada).

I voted Trudeau/Liberals as there were some significant aspects of his campaign that I preferred (particularly election reform. I dislike First Past The Post and feel that any system the undermines a person expressly supporting the person/platform that they want has serious issues. I was hopeful for some form of proportional representation/ranked balloting so that people wouldn't feel they needed to support a "lesser evil." In general I think he's largely been a ponce and feel that there's structural issues given that doing the right thing in this case would definitely undermine the power the LPC has since they are the most likely to obtain majority governments. They're just fine with risking that Conservatives also have that avenue.

I don't really consider myself a "populist" though I do think there's very strong power imbalances in our society (I feel most strongly as it's class based, though obviously other types... I tend to feel that class percolates through a lot of reinforcing mechanisms for race and whatnot). If you were to classify me I'd probably walk a line between Democratic Socialist/Social Democrat. I'm not staunchly anti-capitalist, though I think capitalist class acts in near sighted ways for their own short term benefit while ostensibly being very confused white stronger far-left and far-right sentiments have become espoused. It's likely a factor of varying degrees of privilege and my being a bit of a bleeding heart lately, but on some level I suspect that I can probably relate to the lived experiences of a friend of mine that just recently shared that they are anti-vaccination, Trudeau is a dictator conservative than say, Nancy Pelosi. I find the perspectives frustrating (especially in light of reading about very staunch oppression to war resisters in Russia that crunch anything I saw in Canada... and I say that as someone that believes it is always important to examine and critique any application of emergency powers that Trudeau invoked), but get more angry with people with much larger platforms (and often economic power/security) that broadcast a lot of this stuff for what I see as typically grifting/self-serving ways. While I don't agree with my friend's politics, I can empathize with financial insecurity. What I don't like is when our "Tax Payers Federation" puts forward that the "average" family of 4 pays $2400 to equalization in Canada without breaking down how that burden is split between my friend's family of 4, and the billionaire hockey owner and the oil companies that post 9 digit profitable quarters. Never trust someone discussing "averages" when you have a lower bound of $0 and no upper bound. But I get it, I'm sure he would love an extra $2400 and that would be helpful.

I think police forces in general exercise excessive use of state sanctioned power often without anything resembling accountability, where ostensibly "left-wing" media will often happily act as stenographers for police statements. Despite ample evidence of police abusing their power, institutionally we must maintain that they are somehow more trustworthy and less likely to lie for their own benefit because otherwise we'd have to pause and reflect on how just our justice systems can actually be. When I think of police funding, things I think about are examples such as citizens/cities being on the hook for abuses committed by police officers.

A lot of this started around 2008-2012 when I started more critically looking at my belief structure and seeing how it held up to what I felt was actually best for the country and its people. Interestingly, I've arguably never voted in my own best interest, as I was a staunch Conservative in my early 20s as a student/low income earner and now I'm a lefty when my income is significantly better.

Edited May 8, 2022 by alanschu

[alanschu]

11 hours ago, Gromnir said:

first, don't confuse gop goals with the motives o' Justices or legal scholars opposed to roe. sure there is overlap, but not in the way you likely believe. roe is a particular noteworthy example 'cause as has been stated previous, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, previous to becoming a Justice, were public critical o' roe. lawrence tribe, perhaps the most recognized Constitutional law scholar in the country, and a liberal firebrand nowadays, were excoriating the reasoning o' the roe majority and concurrences in the decade after it were decided. legal philosophy is not same as party affiliation... which is why justice thomas' fall has been so disappointing.  most Justices don't give a fig for politics, at least not where it conflicts with their legal philosophy.

I do understand what you're saying here. You can see it a bit with Conservative appointees still eventually upholding stuff like Obergefell which required votes from people like Kennedy and Roberts. Do you feel it still holds up in recent years were judicial appointments were literally roadblocked with IMO a bogus lame duck and then what felt like very, very deliberate criterion in recent years. I can easily see it being a degree of throwing a bone to single issue voters to ensure their support, but I think it'd be very short sighted of McConnell (a man I do not consider dumb or uncalculating at all) to not reasonably expect that action would be taken on Roe especially in light of what seemed to be a lot of recent state laws that seemed to be designed explicitly to challenge Roe.

You mentioned before the "settled law" shouldn't mean much since there are a lot of examples of settled law being overturned. But I think there's egregious nonsense with Alito's remarks about how abortion access is not "deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions" which also comes across to me (a naive pleb I'll concede) as politicking as I'd expect a Supreme Court Justice to recognize that this isn't a great justification.

12 hours ago, Gromnir said:

also, as we noted already, republicans is not monolithic. mitch mcconnell did not want a real roe fight, even if he deserves as much credit for making the overturning o' roe possible as any Justice. mitch still won't talk 'bout the implications o' roe. what is ted cruz talking 'bout today? the leak. again, 'cause may have gone unnoticed, polls show americans as a whole is overwhelming in favour o' maintaining roe, and mitch and other republicans concerned with winning back Congress and the Presidency is as aware o' that fact as anybody. sure, to keep the evangelicals happy, folks who has shown in the past they has questionable party loyalty, mitch and other national republicans put on a good show o' fighting for the demise o' roe, but killing roe is bad politics given the fact it galvanizes typical torpid democrats (as trump's mishandling o' covid did) and recognizing that near 50% o' republicans in fact support some kinda right to abortion. 'course the 50/50 split is not a thing in many red states, which is why we specific observed national republicans were having a different pov o' roe compared to those in states such as texas and louisiana. 

I agree that Republicans are not monolithic. Though as it happens I actually had just noticed that there was an article where McConnell was talking about the implications of Roe. Fox Atlanta Link

He does talk about how it'd require 60 Senators as he wouldn't compromise the filibuster for any sort of national ban. I could easily see this being a goalpost shift of still soliciting single issue voters now that the Roe angle wouldn't be possible. Do you feel that on some level this is McConnell essentially trying to do his best Icarus without actually getting too close to the sun? I could see that, though as I mentioned I do think we can't recognize his role in setting the stage of Roe being overturnable without him, on some level, at least being okay with that consequence. I think if he set this stage without thinking it'd actually come to pass that would be foolish of him, and I don't think he's a fool.

I disagree with you about Ted Cruz. He is harping on the leak as well. But he did say "If this report is true, this is nothing short of a massive victory for life and will save the lives of millions of innocent babies." He has in the past been very direct about how Roe should be repealed. Granted politicians lie about things all the time, but I concede that Ted pings "doofus" in a way I never would for McConnell. I think that there's a lot of leaning on the leak because it's an easy way to frame "Liberals don't care about our sacred institutions" and also helps set any stage that if (huge if, I don't think it will) the actual ruling were to change, they'd then lean super hard into that. That said, I don't even think we can say for certain that the leak came from someone that wants Roe upheld.

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, alanschu said:

stuff

one thing to clear up is the misunderstanding 'bout J. Alito comments. have already commented we do not share Alito's faith in a history and tradition analysis, but is nothing inherent political 'bout it save how in practice it inevitably favours conservative interests. interpret a law is the role o' a Justice, and what objective measures is there for doing so? to question the traditions and history o' a law to give words meaning when the law were penned? tradition and history leading up to 1791 and 1868 is gonna necessarily exclude a whole lotta people, nevertheless, is not inherent political to decide such is a good approach to interpreting laws. Alito has been consistent with this nonsense and we got a low opinion for his legal and history scholarship, but am thinking is self serving o' liberals to dismiss Alito opinions as political motivated.

oh, and so is clear, am most assured not an Alito supporter,

mcconnell comments as you note is staking out a an irrefutable fact followed by a functional impossibility sans change to filibuster, a change am suspecting he would avoid even if republicans gain control o' the senate just so republicans would have an excuse as to why in spite o' their best efforts, they could not create a national ban on abortion. is the same kinda political strategy which went into the faux fight v. roe which has existed for five decades. 

and fair enough on ted cruz, but he is a senator from texas, so his constituency is the folks who created the heretofore improbable bounty scheme which gave private citizens the right to sue those individuals who aided in abortion. however, ted is most assured not a doofus even if he inexplicable shows he has limited people skills and an utter contempt for those he s'posed represents. ted cruz is arguable a superior legal authority than at least four o' the Justices current sitting on the Court and only two is clear outta his league. he wears cowboy boots and says stuff which resonates with the qanon and maga crowd. he is also as mercenary as mitch mcconnell with having the skill to pull off the machinations, but is only a handful o' people in Congress with as big a brain as ted cruz.

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

10 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

mcconnell comments as you note is staking out a an irrefutable fact followed by a functional impossibility sans change to filibuster, a change am suspecting he would avoid even if republicans gain control o' the senate just so republicans would have an excuse as to why in spite o' their best efforts, they could not create a national ban on abortion. is the same kinda political strategy which went into the faux fight v. roe which has existed for five decades. 

I can definitely see this. Do you feel that the circumstance of the court is a culmination of "Court is so tilted for us now, failure to take any action will be politically bad for us" as well? To be clear I don't think McConnell himself gives a hoot about abortion access and it's just a means to securing power for interests he does care about. I do feel like this is a "placate those voters" type of decision.

And fair enough regarding Cruz' doofusness. While I agree both McConnell and Cruz are mercenary, I get the impression that his contempt for his constituents comes out more easily than someone like McConnell, which leads to things that come across as personally (not politically) embarrassing from stuff like his initial reaction to January 6th leading to him ostensibly apologizing on Carlson's show, to some of the daftest optics for things such as his trip to Cancun. Ted Cruz is the type of politicians that made me reflect on my conservative politics, while I doubt McConnell would have bothered me as much when I was my most conservative. A projection for sure, but in those ways I find he's less savvy than someone like McConnell.

I definitely cannot speak on Cruz's legal capabilities as I suspect I'm ill equipped to effectively comment.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I remember how Trump said Ted Cruz's wife was ugly and how his dad killed JFK....only for Cruz to lick his boots in 2018 and try to coup the US government in 2021. Man, how am I supposed to muster an once of respect for a guy who clearly doesn't respect himself. Somehow, he is not the most pathetic wretch in Texas politics, but all the same I hope he burns in the place in hell reserved for him as soon as possible.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

I remember how Trump said Ted Cruz's wife was ugly and how his dad killed JFK....only for Cruz to lick his boots in 2018 and try to coup the US government in 2021. Man, how am I supposed to muster an once of respect for a guy who clearly doesn't respect himself. Somehow, he is not the most pathetic wretch in Texas politics, but all the same I hope he burns in the place in hell reserved for him as soon as possible.

Yeah, its called political survival and expediency. Most politicians globally  dont want to lose their jobs within their own parties. Welcome to the real world 

I can understand GOP politicians flipflopping on supporting Trump, I would have done the same if I was Ted Cruz...its just politics 

But when he fled like a coward to Mexico during the Texas electricity crisis in 2021 that was unforgivable and irrefutably demonstrates his lack of integrity 

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, alanschu said:

Well, I have never been "completely ideologically" behind any party (Canada, or US, or otherwise). My slice of preferring Democrats/centrists was more in response to my distaste towards what I felt was an increased willingness for conservative parties to lean into the social conservative policies. I voted Conservative up until 2011 (when I voted for Canada's NDP party largely because my MP seemed like a decent person and I was voting for an opposition that wasn't the Liberal Party of Canada).

I voted Trudeau/Liberals as there were some significant aspects of his campaign that I preferred (particularly election reform. I dislike First Past The Post and feel that any system the undermines a person expressly supporting the person/platform that they want has serious issues. I was hopeful for some form of proportional representation/ranked balloting so that people wouldn't feel they needed to support a "lesser evil." In general I think he's largely been a ponce and feel that there's structural issues given that doing the right thing in this case would definitely undermine the power the LPC has since they are the most likely to obtain majority governments. They're just fine with risking that Conservatives also have that avenue.

I don't really consider myself a "populist" though I do think there's very strong power imbalances in our society (I feel most strongly as it's class based, though obviously other types... I tend to feel that class percolates through a lot of reinforcing mechanisms for race and whatnot). If you were to classify me I'd probably walk a line between Democratic Socialist/Social Democrat. I'm not staunchly anti-capitalist, though I think capitalist class acts in near sighted ways for their own short term benefit while ostensibly being very confused white stronger far-left and far-right sentiments have become espoused. It's likely a factor of varying degrees of privilege and my being a bit of a bleeding heart lately, but on some level I suspect that I can probably relate to the lived experiences of a friend of mine that just recently shared that they are anti-vaccination, Trudeau is a dictator conservative than say, Nancy Pelosi. I find the perspectives frustrating (especially in light of reading about very staunch oppression to war resisters in Russia that crunch anything I saw in Canada... and I say that as someone that believes it is always important to examine and critique any application of emergency powers that Trudeau invoked), but get more angry with people with much larger platforms (and often economic power/security) that broadcast a lot of this stuff for what I see as typically grifting/self-serving ways. While I don't agree with my friend's politics, I can empathize with financial insecurity. What I don't like is when our "Tax Payers Federation" puts forward that the "average" family of 4 pays $2400 to equalization in Canada without breaking down how that burden is split between my friend's family of 4, and the billionaire hockey owner and the oil companies that post 9 digit profitable quarters. Never trust someone discussing "averages" when you have a lower bound of $0 and no upper bound. But I get it, I'm sure he would love an extra $2400 and that would be helpful.

I think police forces in general exercise excessive use of state sanctioned power often without anything resembling accountability, where ostensibly "left-wing" media will often happily act as stenographers for police statements. Despite ample evidence of police abusing their power, institutionally we must maintain that they are somehow more trustworthy and less likely to lie for their own benefit because otherwise we'd have to pause and reflect on how just our justice systems can actually be. When I think of police funding, things I think about are examples such as citizens/cities being on the hook for abuses committed by police officers.

A lot of this started around 2008-2012 when I started more critically looking at my belief structure and seeing how it held up to what I felt was actually best for the country and its people. Interestingly, I've arguably never voted in my own best interest, as I was a staunch Conservative in my early 20s as a student/low income earner and now I'm a lefty when my income is significantly better.

Thanks for the detailed response, I dont know  much about the Canadian political system and your post has raised some questions I would like to get your feedback on about the reality of Canadian politics and how it all works and also some of the issues that Canada has gone through recently. Like that Truckers protest 

But I will go through your post in detail and get back to you later 

[BruceVC]

I see their are R vs W protests outside Kavanaugh and Roberts houses....in the streets outside their houses 

On CNN commentators were handwaving this with comments like "yes people are angry " 

I think this is unacceptable and creates an appalling precedent. So what would those same commentators be saying  when right-wing groups or Conservative protestors decide to start protesting outside Democrat's houses or left leaning judges or any politicians that they dont agree with ? Would the response really be " yes they angry, its okay to have January 6 people protesting outside your house ". Somehow I dont think so

This is not how you should protest and it goes too far 

 

[Malcador]

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ethiopia-all-out-war-looks-imminent

I guess if there's a time to have a war, now's the time.  Also 500,000 dead due to the war in Tigray after ~18 months, yikes.

[BruceVC]

34 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ethiopia-all-out-war-looks-imminent

I guess if there's a time to have a war, now's the time.  Also 500,000 dead due to the war in Tigray after ~18 months, yikes.

It is dire and the AU as usual couldnt really be bothered to intervene meaningfully 

Do you know Ethiopia is the HQ of the AU 

[alanschu]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ethiopia-all-out-war-looks-imminent

I guess if there's a time to have a war, now's the time.  Also 500,000 dead due to the war in Tigray after ~18 months, yikes.

*looks around the world*

**** seems kinda bad doesn't it?

[HoonDing]

It's almost like they aren't white.

[Malcador]

46 minutes ago, alanschu said:

*looks around the world*

**** seems kinda bad doesn't it?

The Antichrist is in a primary election, somewhere.

[alanschu]

This is some weird stuff regarding some of the Catalonian independence movement.

Catalonian leaders referred to the man who offered them troops and money to secede from Spain as “Putin’s envoy.” Reporters identified him as Nikolai Sadovnikov, a longtime diplomat who reportedly worked as a strategic adviser to the Russian foreign minister.

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/fueling-secession-promising-bitcoins-how-a-russian-operator-urged-catalonian-leaders-to-break-with-madrid

[Gorth]

6 hours ago, Malcador said:

The Antichrist is in a primary election, somewhere.

He's running for re-election in Australia this month...

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, HoonDing said:

It's almost like they aren't white.

You set such a low bar for Africa when you make comments like this, it is possible for the likes of the AU to resolve its own problems and not expect or rely on the West to have to address internal conflicts

All it takes is political will, effort and consistency around the manifesto of the AU. 

 

[Zoraptor]

Lol no.

I mean, what can the AU do, practically? What would the EU do if Bavaria was rebelling against Germany, with the support of France?*, **

Impose peacekeepers, because you can bet Ethiopia won't approve them? So... 100k peacekeepers maybe from, uh, ??? Who is going to send their soldiers to potentially die in Ethiopia, a country that is infamously hard to fight in and whose army is, for Africa, well armed and trained. The only keen contributor would be Egypt as they'd get a chance to 'accidentally' blow up the Grand Renaissance Dam while there, and there's zero chance they'd be approved as that would be seen quite rightly as a literal invasion. The peacekeepers will also arrive from and be supplied via, hmm. Sudan, currently suspended from the organisation and as keen to blow up the GRD as Egypt? South Sudan or Somalia, both abject messes themselves? Eritrea, Ethiopia's ally? Kenya, Ethiopia's ally in Somalia? Or are you going to try and run everything through Djibouti, a country that benefits massively from being Ethiopia's port? So, you need Ethiopian approval you won't get and peacekeepers no one will send without that support. The only good news is at least the supply question is therefore irrelevant.

OK so sanctions then, which are globally renowned for their lack of effect. And would be impossible to implement politically anyway.

*Colloquially known as the years ~1550-1813AD, if you take a broad definition of Germany

**Not, of course, intended as a direct equivalent, just an illustration.

[BruceVC]

35 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Lol no.

I mean, what can the AU do, practically? What would the EU do if Bavaria was rebelling against Germany, with the support of France?*, **

Impose peacekeepers, because you can bet Ethiopia won't approve them? So... 100k peacekeepers maybe from, uh, ??? Who is going to send their soldiers to potentially die in Ethiopia, a country that is infamously hard to fight in and whose army is, for Africa, well armed and trained. The only keen contributor would be Egypt as they'd get a chance to 'accidentally' blow up the Grand Renaissance Dam while there, and there's zero chance they'd be approved as that would be seen quite rightly as a literal invasion. The peacekeepers will also arrive from and be supplied via, hmm. Sudan, currently suspended from the organisation and as keen to blow up the GRD as Egypt? South Sudan or Somalia, both abject messes themselves? Eritrea, Ethiopia's ally? Kenya, Ethiopia's ally in Somalia? Or are you going to try and run everything through Djibouti, a country that benefits massively from being Ethiopia's port? So, you need Ethiopian approval you won't get and peacekeepers no one will send without that support. The only good news is at least the supply question is therefore irrelevant.

OK so sanctions then, which are globally renowned for their lack of effect. And would be impossible to implement politically anyway.

*Colloquially known as the years ~1550-1813AD, if you take a broad definition of Germany

**Not, of course, intended as a direct equivalent, just an illustration.

Lol yes

I realize you dont think much of the purpose and creation of the AU but it can do lots

For starters it can be consistent and follow its own rules which include ensuring that all members states follow the AU  manifesto that they are agreed to when the AU was founded in 2002 . In just the  last 2 years we have several coups, civil wars and blatant cheating and clamping down on free and fair elections like the appalling disgrace of the Uganda " election " last year

Their is no unity or meaningful AU condemnation  of these developments from the AU. So if you serious about the African Renaissance you start with that. All military missions are funded by the UN anyway once the conflict is acknowledged. Which raises another criticism towards the AU, where is a AU reactionary force and the reality of African countries funding their own military missions that Africa has been waiting for over the last 20 years? And their are African countries with money and resources but their is no political will 

My concern is not just about Ethiopia, its the overall goal of the real transformation of the African continent. It can be be achieved but not when institutions like AU do nothing to address the problems created by some countries who have no interest in Democracy or uplifting the lives of their citizens

We cant expect the West to always fix the problems in regions like the ME and Africa which are often  self-inflicted by poor and failed leadership 

[Zoraptor]

lol no. I actually think the AU does a decent job, considering the circumstances, and serves a reasonable purpose.

It's just not designed for situations like Ethiopia. For that you need the UN- which hasn't done anything more than hand wringing either.

[BruceVC]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/african-union-ethiopia-acted-legitimately-tigray-74839944#:~:text=African Union says Ethiopia acted legitimately in Tigray,min read 3%3A25 On Location%3A April 15%2C 2022

https://theowp.org/reports/the-war-crimes-of-ethiopias-civil-war/

@Zoraptor @Malcador

I wanted to  simply make my point about the numerous failures of the AU around its own policies and its inconsistency with its own comments 

The first link states the Ethiopian government acted " legitimately ", the second link highlights the war crimes 

But both sides in this current Ethiopian conflict are guilty of war crimes but its much worse from the Ethiopian army side 

 

 

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

lol no. I actually think the AU does a decent job, considering the circumstances, and serves a reasonable purpose.

It's just not designed for situations like Ethiopia. For that you need the UN- which hasn't done anything more than hand wringing either.

Well yes, you could make the point the AU does a decent job

If you consider calling about publicly racism on the borders of Hungary and Poland and then saying war crimes committed within the Tigray region as legitimate as decent then  I agree 

[Guard Dog]

18 hours ago, Malcador said:

The Antichrist is in a primary election, somewhere.

Oh good, this s--t has to come to an end sooner or later. Might as well be sooner.

[Gfted1]

 @religousnutters.