God made the land in question (and all others) and so has the final say about it, but nothing I said until now was dependent on religious or theistic beliefs.

(And I think Trump will be very offended if he, the POTUS, is up there and people are showing public disobedience to him but not to Johnson.)

Just make sure to show Mike Johnson some modicum of respect (e.g. if he tells you to stop doing something, don't blatantly disobey, but rather find another way to heckle).

Unlike Trump, Johnson actually has authority relevant to the venue.

Members of Congress attending SOTU please consider some creative signs to hold up. Consider: Was that a sentence? Or Please speak English! Or Was that a dog whistle? Perhaps, I’m surprised you’re still awake. Among other.

Counterpoint: We should not have *allegiance* to political parties at all. Just vote whichever way is most likely to be most practically beneficial to your interests (including moral interests such as concern for others).

2. First of all, other countries were also unwelcoming. Second, other countries are not the Jewish homeland; Israel is.

3. You say that none of this justifies the atrocities that the Israeli government is committing. On *that* point, I fully agree with you.

1. I'm pretty sure that those Jews were housed by non-Palestinians (who had bought or built those houses) under a non-Palestinian (British) government, so no the Palestinians did not house those people and actually got the British government to send some back to the Nazis.

You can always watch but switch your fan affiliation.

It's helping turn *Nancy Mace* against Trump.

It's a slower effect, but it's working here too.

Correction: $9 million per capture of those *that they claimed* were the worst of the worst.

Let's not assume the accusations were true...

No, the Palestinians' behavior toward the Jews after (and during and immediately before) the Holocaust was definitely not "welcoming".

Do you even *know* what was done to the ancient Jewish community in Hebron?

If I could get the support to run, I'd give you 3 out of 4, plus any gun control measures that will *not* make it harder for the people to resist Trump's illegitimate actions.

And being from (sort of) that region is irrelevant to the charge of genocide. *Most* genocides are committed by natives of the broad region where it occurs, be it Rwandan, Darfur, Uighur, Armenian, or even the Nazi Holocaust. Even Gaza, if you count that as a genocide (I expect you do).

Furthermore, if Israel were dismantled now, the result would be less like pre-Zionism, and more like after Zionism but before 1948, which *definitely* saw massacres of Jewish communities.

And yes, I said "Arabs" because not all of those around them are Muslim.

There were times before Zionism that they most certainly did not "coexist fine". Oppression by Muslims was on average not as bad as oppression by Christians, but it could get quite bad as well.

But he's hoping to become enough of a fait accompli to be the guy the non-progressives rally behind.

Ah, that is a good point.

I support Israel in the sense of thinking it would be bad to dismantle the state and allow the Arabs in the region to do whatever they want to the Jews living there...

Which is a very different thing than supporting *what Israel is doing right now*.

Hmm...that's actually another piece of evidence connecting the "expulsion from Eden" piece in the Bible with the development of agriculture...

Your argument assumes that those making these decisions are at least as intelligent as you are...

Actually, I was hoping you'd be reasonable and we could have a productive conversation, with either you teaching me or me teaching you, but apparently not...

Are you so illiterate that you think saying "this is not technically fascism" constitutes *defending* anyone?

Your skin color has *nothing* to do with anything here except in your own mind. It's the quality of your logic (or lack thereof) that I care about, not your skin.

"Extremely obvious"? What supposedly makes it so obvious?

Pretty sure that Mussolini did not (except maybe xenophobia). Hitler did, of course. I don't *think* Franco did either, but I may be wrong.

Hence my statement that they are fascist-adjacent, but not actually fascist, which fits with them being used by some fascists but not all.

Ah. So you're not even interested in trying to persuade people that you're right...you just want to block anyone who doesn't blindly accept everything you say.

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

You can't blame other people for not believing you if you're going to refuse to make your point via a logical progression of ideas.

Also, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia are bad, but other than *possibly* xenophobia are not actually fascism. (Though most are fascism-*adjacent*.)

Given how you've been arguing: Yes, you could literally have the cure for cancer, and we would disagree on account of you not actually providing any reason for any reasonable person to *believe* you had the cure for cancer.

Seriously? Are you actually claiming that *nobody* could plausibly disagree with you (despite you not having provided any actual logical argument, just a bunch of data) unless they had an absurd view about history?

Yes, but he thinks that acting like he's already won will give him an advantage in said primary.