You can try to put it to a vote but I doubt Article V's requirements would be met in today's environment. So what's the point that useless thought exercise?
For the same reason they deposed Maduro, control, obviously.
Your mistake is thinking they care about Iranians enough to want them dead. The reality is that they want Iran to bend the knee, at which point they'll go back to not thinking about them at all.
Option D: God may exist but has no perceivable after consequence and doesn't take part in any aspect of our day to day lives which are governed by physics (Deism)
Option E: God may or may not exist but once again, has no effect on our lives. (agnosticism)
So all option C), D), E) [I don't think that the concept of hell/heaven exists in it] have the same impact IMO that esentially there isn't any consequence on our day to day live and we are all gonna be just void when we die. Nothingness,
From here, we can approach towards what is the meaning of life and add onto the existenialism to find ones own meanings and that itself becomes a bedrock of morality
I personally fall somewhere along C), D), E) myself but I don't like to wonder about where exactly because it doesn't really have an impact on my life. I also sometimes fall into B) (God is outside me) in times of troubles to somehow get out of trouble or find strength if I am unable to find within myself during that time.
Logically, it might not make sense for me to believe in god during times of troubles if I can't have logic find the same meaning during not times of troubles. But I do think that humans are driven by emotions not logic at its core so its best to be light on yourself.
Also I feel gratitude towards the universe rather than god and the things which help me in my life during times of joy sometimes.
I also sometimes believe in rituals/festivals because they are part of my culture/community and it brings me joy at times.
But I have enough freeway leverage within all of this that I dictate this as my choice of life and If I see any religious figure person or anything being misused or see faults in any rituals being cruel. I don't feel dear to them and can quickly call anything out and be secular in the sense that I respect other people's rituals to be in co-existence with mine as long as they are peaceful about it because the element of coexistence is only possible within the elements of being peaceful/society being cooperative at large and I hold both people of my community/outside my community to the same standard and am quick to call out if new faults start to happen from my community but also from any other community. (Calling spade a spade)
First prove yhwh.
Then prove your favorite book is a direct transmission from yhwh. Disprove the claims of other peoples favorite books, there is a lot of competition there.
Demonstrate the telephone line by which this so called yhwh communicates his words and prove how and why it no longer does.
Why not? I have no idea why people were thinking corporations are overpowered when twitter banned trump. I thought it was great and showed nobody is above the law/tos. Likewise if the president has done crimes, he should pay the time.
> the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview
It turns out that "checks and balances" meant "the president is unchecked and unbalanced".
Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. The checks and balances wasn’t meant to setup a system where Presidents can be sent to prison but to prevent “crimes” (for the lack of a better word) to happen to begin with. Of course our current “party over Country” system has practically killed any semblance of checks and balances…
They did. Hamilton even argued that presidents should be subject to “forfeiture of life and estate” if crimes deemed it so. Federalist 77.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the constitution makes it clear that while impeachment is limited to removal, but that after they are fair game for criminal processes.
Wilson wrote 'far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them"
Anti-federalists went even farther - they believed that the Federalists' reliance on the impeachment process, for example, left far too wide of a gap to be exploited.
Does Trump want to be Mussolinied? It should always be legal to jail and hang the head of state, otherwise the head of state risks going by a much funnier way. Its not about politics, it's simple game theory.
That comparison is ignorant. We’re not talking about Mitt Romney, okay? We’re talking about a hypothetical where polygamists overthrow the government of Utah, stone Mitt Romney to death, and threaten to do the same in Idaho. That’s the equivalent of what happened in Iran, what happened in Egypt recently, and the threat across the Muslim world.
The last time we faced a similar risk from Christianity, it resulted in a military occupation of Utah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF3UqUH6y-M&vl=en. If that was happening now, we’d be having a serious conversation about military responses to “political Christianity.” But it’s not.
> We’re talking about a hypothetical where polygamists overthrow the government of Utah, stone Mitt Romney to death, and threaten to do the same in Idaho.
I’m morbidly interested in hearing your rationalizations, if any, for the Jan 6th protests.
Christian psychos are already at the forefront of the government, its not the end, its barely even the beginning of their insanity. And this batch doesn't yet need to engage in militantism, because...the entire government apparatus is already there for doing their bidding, but that's hardly any reason to see they aren't escalating with their insanity. I mean, Israel itself has even more of religious extremism in their government and society than present day America.
All of that is also quite irrelevant to the fact that Iran wasn't attacking the USA or Israel, Israel and America attacked them unprovoked while making a pretense of negotiating peace deals with them. I hate religion and I hate theocracies, while these are shitty countries they haven't been shitty to me, only to their internal populace. Iran also isn't the country that "doesn't have" nukes and refuses to get their nuclear facilities inspected. There is only one country in the middle east that does. Iran is far more trustworthy in the nuclear department than Israel. Israel, if it hadn't already shown how much of a reprobate traitorous liar they already are, shows yet another iteration of their old colors to the new generation. The same Israel that did the USS Liberty and so on.
edit: Holy shit and to say nothing of the reports coming that soldiers are being told this is a Holy war for Armageddon. That's literal theocratic extremism right under our noses.
I am sure they are trying to "dislodge theocracy". We know USA and Israel are always hypertruthful about their real goals in Middle eastern adventurism. One country "doesn't" have any nukes and the other attacked Iraq because they "had" nukes. So tou should understand if different people have different levels of trust in the stated motivations.
The objective of the mission is clearly to dislodge the theocracy. The motivation for doing so is clearly US and Israeli security, not concern for the welfare of Iranians. Which is as it should be. Countries should act in their own interest, not in the interests of other countries.
The objective is bs, most probably oil and Israeli interests. After all there have been many stated "objectives" of all their past middle eastern campaigns. I literally cited an example where false lie of nukes was used to invade Iraq while the actual country lying about nukes sits scot free and is again directing another misadventure. If the USA hated theocracies so much it won't be allying with arab countries or have been propping up the "Mujahideen".
reply