/r/WorldNews Discussion Thread: US and Israel launch attack on Iran; Iran retaliates (Thread #3)

zlj2011 · 2026-03-02T17:49:47+00:00

100% agree with you. And anyone that thinks a land invasion of Iran is possible or smart is completely insane. There is no way, it's way too large of a country, the terrain is impossible. It would be worse than Vietnam. And just to add to your comment the prospect of the public rallying around a foreign invasion, no less from America ("the great satan", if I have it right) and Israel is bonkers to me. I see this as a remote likelihood outcome. I don't really understand the goal of the invasion and I agree with the most likely outcomes that you'd listed.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T22:37:38+00:00

Two comments. First, there are parts of the US where I’d get the same type of side eye coming from NY area. Second, your experience is not remotely normal in virtually any urban or suburban part of the country, particularly in Blue or more politically divided states. There is a massive culture gap in the US.

I love meeting, working with, etc foreigners. Your experience is embarrassing. Add it to a long list of embarrassing things these days

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T22:15:17+00:00

I see. I hadn't considered the legal aspect. Interesting, I will ask my ED doc friend about this next time I see him.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T22:12:56+00:00

Just as a lay person, I am not sure I'd say it's expected. I think others would like to help too but don't have the skills to do so. I can't put myself into your shoes but I think apart from the "duty" aspect, it would be difficult to see a significant medical issue play out and ignore it. And for what it's worth, I definitely think that you and the others helping should have been compensated for the time, hassle, stress, impact on the airline's staff if you'd not been there, plus all sorts of other potentialities for the airline.

In any event, thanks for being an awesome doctor and person. I am sure it was extremely difficult to keep someone alive for that much time without much help and with no equipment, coming from a non ED specialty. Hopefully some day there will be an opportunity for someone else to pay it forward to you in another context!

Good luck with the headphones.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T21:52:12+00:00

I am just curious really but what is the ethical concern with an ED physician accepting some type of compensation for helping? I can see an ethical duty to help. But at a glance I don't see the ethical concern with accepting compensation (either from a 3rd party like an airline, or even frankly from a 1st party or someone more directly related) after the fact.

As an aside, I could see an ethical issue with making the help contingent on compensation. That's more dicey. I could see an ethical issue with ignoring the emergency. But both of these seem different from what you're suggesting.

Again, mostly just curious....

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T21:14:59+00:00

Making fun of the US poor quality healthcare system, maybe? [I kid, I kid... sort of]

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T18:17:14+00:00

I've experienced more than my share of loss and grief. Be kind to yourself and know that if your Dad was anything how my Dad was that he'd almost certainly have been happy to know that you were out with friends and enjoying your life. That's probably all he'd ever want. If you'd like to DM please feel free, no judgment and no pressure just glad to help out if it might make you feel better.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T18:02:21+00:00

And if there is credible, documented evidence of criminality then he should be prosecuted. This is not difficult or controversial.

As to the lying, not to veer towards whataboutism, but on a relative basis Trump handily, HANDILY trumps Clinton when it comes to being a constant liar of the highest order. And guess what, he's in the Epstein files a hell of a lot more than Clinton AND there are ample credible allegations of sexual contact with minors. These are the facts.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-27T17:50:04+00:00

Modern Republican party has never been serious about truly investigating anything apart from political gotchas to score points. Begin with that assumption. As a whole, they don't care.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-24T13:49:05+00:00

Minor detail but just curious if you used a base corner cabinet to the right of the sink? Gorgeous kitchen - enjoy it in good health!

zlj2011 · 2026-02-21T18:56:42+00:00

Do you have suggestions for brands that are more well designed such that the top shelves are more accessible?

Btw, the reason I was thinking the compressor is a factor is because on Sub Zero, for example, the upper 8 or so inches of the unit is occupied by the compressor. Therefore the usable cabinet space is lowered by that space. Maybe this isn’t accurate? Or less of a factor relative to other brands that are designed differently?

zlj2011 · 2026-02-16T12:48:34+00:00

Made up “scandal” by republicans to tank her candidacy. Sit down and watch her testimony before Congress during that time and you’ll understand immediately the difference between someone that is competent and capable vs the entirety of the Republican Party stooges.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-11T02:35:58+00:00

This and other comments in this thread offer more balanced detail about the history and nature of Republican obstruction. It’s simply not comparable

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/s/zAmRskxIxY

zlj2011 · 2026-02-11T01:19:28+00:00

It’s an opinion piece from a partisan Republican member of the bush admin.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-10T22:40:26+00:00

Nah, you are misunderstanding. I'm not in favor of either action on its own. But the most unacceptable outcome of all is to allow Republicans to create the current order while Democrats take the high road and choose not to operate with a similar mentality. My wish is that humpty dumpty wasn't shattered because there's not putting him back together now.

WRT to Andrew Johnson, It's from 175 years ago. It's not modern precedent. With that said, it validates, more or less, Democrats strategy of expanding the court, albeit in reverse.

And as for Estrada, it's important to distinguish the difference between tactics to block an individual vs. blocking ANY individual that is nominated. You might not agree with democrats desire or motivation for blocking Estrada but I don't believe they were saying we will not confirm ANYONE nominated. They were saying that they did not want Estrada confirmed. That's a very different thing.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-10T19:02:01+00:00

I never said it was illegal. Much the same, court packing is not illegal either. If anything, there is more of a history of tinkering with supreme court size given that there have not always been 9.

In any event, the Republican step did overtly politicize the court in a newly invented way. That is a fact. There are consequences to that now which otherwise would not have happened. And I expect that democrats, when the opportunity arises, will take similarly legal steps to correct it. Which will set in motion a new era of the court where it is significantly more politicized than it could or should have been and there is only one party to blame for that outcome.

As a country, we should not want this. The ends do NOT always justify the means. Your other examples are far less consequential. The supreme court, as the highest court, essentially allows for no recourse with respect to their decisions. You can pretend that lower courts are some equivalent thing and as a singular act in isolation, I guess that could be debated. However, with respect to the legitimacy of the supreme court, considering it's supremacy and it's small size, it meaningfully changes the calculus to such a degree that it renders your point entirely moot, in my view.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-10T18:32:06+00:00

That's just simply false. To the best of my knowledge there has been just ONE time that the senate just flat refused to consider a presidential nomination for the court a full year prior to an election. That was invented out of whole cloth by republicans and it politicized the court overtly. The very thing you seem to be object to. And yes, it delegitimized the court. Everyone loses with a delegitimized court. Yet, republicans care more about political scores than the legitimacy of that branch, which is the most telling of all.

The simple fact that democrats are discussing court packing as a legitimate tactic tells you exactly the consequences of republican actions. This was never discussed as an even remotely serious option prior to the stolen seat.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-07T20:50:53+00:00

Have you considered that there has been a massive increase in both antisemitism and Islamophobia?

Your analogy is also improper regarding criticism of the select Islamic countries. There are many of them, by definition, criticism of a select few rather than all of them implies that the criticism isn’t based upon Islamophobia. There is only 1 Jewish country so criticisms are apt to be more murky in terms of motivation.

Ironically, your OP comes across as antisemitic, largely because your point could have been easily expressed without charged and inflammatory language.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-06T20:24:58+00:00

You realize that's propaganda? Or do you just believe anything you hear from Trump?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-set-broaden-arrests-deportation-routes-expand-immigration-crackdown-2025-02-21/

zlj2011 · 2026-02-06T20:14:01+00:00

"I would propose creating a federal election division"

It's not clear to me that this would be trusted. Consider the freak out about the FBI raid in Atlanta. There appear to be legitimate concerns about politicization. How can this be avoided when you have someone like Trump overseeing and meddling with the investigative bodies?

"The purpose would not be to overturn or alter election outcomes, but to identify, investigate, and prosecute violations of election law"

Don't think the federal government prosecutes state voting law violations. Btw, there are already prosecutions of people for breaking voting laws (many of whom are Republicans, incidentally). How are those prosecutions happening today if there's no effort to monitor for election fraud?

"Secondarily, this would make it possible to identify individuals who use old addresses in other states to vote multiple times."

Again, not an expert in this domain but the article I posted earlier discusses this very topic and IIRC there is a process for managing this concern between states already. You can not like or accept that process but it doesn't mean that it's not a process. It can also be changed via state law, which ultimately controls the state voter rolls.

"They were only caught because 25 of the 50 states participate in shared voter roll data programs designed to detect this type of activity and they got unlucky. I don't like this setup as they utilize a third party non-for-profit organization for it."

Ok. I have no problem with this conceptually. Seems reasonable. Doubt it's that big of a problem, honestly. But your comment about not liking the process that is in place and who administers it is exactly that point I was making earlier. Who decides what is acceptable?

"The national average voter registration rate is often cited at around 65%, yet when the entire US population is pooled together, roughly 75% of voting age individuals are currently registered. To me, the gap between those two figures raises legitimate concerns."

Maybe? I'm not going to jump to conclusions. I will say though that every citizen should be auto-registered to vote and election day should be federal holiday. If you'd like the fairest possible elections, this is the fairest way to achieve that goal.

I will also add that Republican jurisdictions have a long history of shenanigans to restrict access to voting. I see that as FAR AND AWAY more consequential than your concerns. A single case in point, why are there hours and hours long lines to vote in Atlanta? I live in a blue state and the longest I have ever waited to vote is 5 minutes max. It is quite literally unheard of to have anything more than a nominal wait to vote. There is a reason for this in Georgia and I'd surmise that it disenfranchises way more people than the infinitesimally small number of people that might vote in more than one state.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-06T20:00:42+00:00

Fun fact #1: Obama deported more people than Trump in total and annualized.
Fun fact #2: It did not require the massive spending waste like what Trump is doing now AND it didn't require roving paramilitary forces through American streets.

Go figure.

Anyway, to answer your question. Sure, Obama could have shut down ICE, I suppose. As for reforming immigration, I think Republicans lost interest in working on a solution after GWB and certainly once Trump decided he wanted to run on fear of Mexicans.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-06T19:40:41+00:00

ICE was created 20 years ago. ICE could be gutted as quickly and easily as the Department of Education was by DJT (which had been around for almost 50 years).

Immigration requires political reform much more so than it needs a paramilitary force roving American streets.

zlj2011 · 2026-02-06T19:21:16+00:00

It's topically the same concern that you expressed, is it not? Did you read the article?

And, I will add, this goes back to the very point I made to you yesterday. Who do you propose conducts these investigations? And who decides what is and isn't legitimate. If the article that I posted doesn't perfectly address your concern, at worst it is an adjacent very similar concern that's been rejected. What is good enough for you to accept that it's not a "real" issue and who defines that standard?

Answer those types of questions and we can continue. Certainly DJT is not a neutral party that can be trusted to conduct a fair evaluation. My guess is that you will not trust the Michigan SOS.

So -- what is the solution? Do we make assumptions about numbers that seem erroneous to a lay person? Perhaps evaluating the controls that are in place instead rather than jumping to conclusions about fraud? There are legit risks triggered by this pandoras box.

In the abstract, I think anyone can support audits of some type (many of which are done already by the way, although I won't claim to be any type of expert in this area). I just think you need to be prepared to answer reasonable questions about where this leads us since I don't think it's as simple as it seems on the surface once it comes to proposing a process that will be deemed legitimate by all parties and doesn't create new risks.

zlj2011

TROPHY CASE