#103
Well, let's brewminate on that:
"I am focusing on a comparison between Lyndon B. Johnson and Donald Trump precisely because the comparison is instructive, not because it is forgiving.
Both men faced credible accusations of exploiting public office for private advantage and both blurred ethical boundaries in ways that troubled contemporaries and later historians.
But the similarities end quickly once scale, intent, and consequence are examined with care."
"History does not judge power by asking whether it was abused at all. It asks how often, how openly, and to what end. Lyndon Johnson exploited his position for personal advantage, and that exploitation deserves scrutiny and condemnation. But it occurred within a presidency that also produced enduring public goods and accepted, however imperfectly, the idea that ethical boundaries existed. Johnson's failures strained democratic norms. They did not redefine them.
"Donald Trump's presidency operates in a different moral register. Personal enrichment is not an aberration or a temptation resisted poorly. It is woven into the fabric of governance itself.
The office is a tool for self-promotion, institutional capture, and financial gain on a scale and with a visibility unmatched in modern American history.
This difference is not one of tone or temperament but instead a difference of category. When enrichment becomes principle rather than deviation, the damage extends beyond any single administration.
This is why historical literacy matters now. Comparisons that collapse distinction into cynicism do not clarify the past; they erase it.
To say that "everyone does it" is to abandon the moral vocabulary necessary for democratic judgment.
History records patterns, precedents, and consequences. It recognizes that abuses accumulate differently depending on how they are practiced and normalized.
Degrees matter because they determine whether corruption is survivable or systemic."
more
brewminate.com
"No, thats whats known as a War. Words do have definitions."
Under Article II of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention (which Israel ratified), GENOCIDE IS DEFINED as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group: killing a large number of members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to a large number of members of the group, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part.
Does the definition of genocide apply to the Palestinian people?
YES say the vast majority of scholars and ruling bodies and those who have taken the tie to objectively research the ongoing atrocities committed in Gaza and the West Bank.
NO say the Zionists, the American politicians and business and media personalities they control and their ground-level apologists, who have been catapulting their ethno-supremacist, fascist propaganda for decades.
Yup. Words do have definitions.