Conservatives report better mental health than liberals

T. A. Gardner said:
On a related note, I'm curious how you think Trump is a "war criminal."
Click to expand...
Donald Trump has not been formally convicted of war crimes, but some critics and observers have accused him of actions that could be classified as war crimes under international law. These accusations stem from several of his policies and decisions during his presidency (2017–2021), particularly in relation to the wars in the Middle East, the treatment of detainees, and other controversial actions. Below are some key events that have led to such accusations:


1.​


  • Accusation: Trump has repeatedly expressed support for the use of torture against detainees, such as waterboarding, a practice widely condemned as torture under international law (specifically the United Nations Convention Against Torture). Although the U.S. officially banned torture after the George W. Bush administration, Trump suggested that he would reinstate it.
  • Legal Context: Under international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is prohibited, and those who authorize or commit acts of torture can be prosecuted as war criminals.

2.​


  • Accusation: In January 2020, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. While the U.S. government justified this as a defensive measure in response to imminent threats from Soleimani, critics argued it could be considered an extrajudicial killing, which is illegal under international law, and could potentially amount to a war crime.
  • Legal Context: The U.S. has the right to self-defense, but targeted killings, especially without clear evidence of an imminent threat or judicial process, can be seen as violations of the prohibition against extrajudicial killings.

3.​


  • Accusation: Under Trump's leadership, U.S. military operations, particularly in countries like Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan, led to significant civilian casualties, some of which were attributed to airstrikes or drone attacks. In particular, Trump expanded drone warfare, which led to accusations that such strikes often lacked adequate accountability, sometimes resulting in civilian deaths.
  • Legal Context: International humanitarian law, especially the Geneva Conventions, requires that military operations distinguish between combatants and civilians, and attacks on civilians are prohibited. Critics have argued that the lack of accountability and transparency in some of these operations could potentially amount to war crimes.

4.​


  • Accusation: Trump's administration was a strong supporter of the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The conflict, which began in 2015, has led to widespread civilian casualties and a humanitarian disaster, with reports of airstrikes targeting civilian infrastructure, schools, and hospitals.
  • Legal Context: If it can be proven that the U.S. played a significant role in directing or enabling such attacks, it could be argued that it was complicit in war crimes. Critics have pointed out that the U.S. continued to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and provide military assistance despite the widespread human rights violations in Yemen.

5.​


  • Accusation: Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, which led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, drew criticism as a form of cruelty. While not directly related to traditional war crimes, some argue that the policy could be considered a form of state-sanctioned violence against vulnerable populations.
  • Legal Context: Some legal scholars have raised concerns that such actions could be considered crimes against humanity, which is a term used in international law to refer to actions that are part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians.

6.​


  • Accusation: Trump's dismissal of international norms and institutions, including his rejection of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which investigates war crimes, could be seen as an attempt to avoid accountability. His administration’s actions, particularly the “America First” stance, often placed U.S. interests above global legal standards.
  • Legal Context: While not a direct war crime, undermining global accountability mechanisms that prosecute war criminals could be seen as complicity in enabling impunity for actions that violate international law.
 
Number Six said:
Donald Trump has not been formally convicted of war crimes, but some critics and observers have accused him of actions that could be classified as war crimes under international law. These accusations stem from several of his policies and decisions during his presidency (2017–2021), particularly in relation to the wars in the Middle East, the treatment of detainees, and other controversial actions. Below are some key events that have led to such accusations:


1.​


  • Accusation: Trump has repeatedly expressed support for the use of torture against detainees, such as waterboarding, a practice widely condemned as torture under international law (specifically the United Nations Convention Against Torture). Although the U.S. officially banned torture after the George W. Bush administration, Trump suggested that he would reinstate it.
  • Legal Context: Under international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is prohibited, and those who authorize or commit acts of torture can be prosecuted as war criminals.

2.​


  • Accusation: In January 2020, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. While the U.S. government justified this as a defensive measure in response to imminent threats from Soleimani, critics argued it could be considered an extrajudicial killing, which is illegal under international law, and could potentially amount to a war crime.
  • Legal Context: The U.S. has the right to self-defense, but targeted killings, especially without clear evidence of an imminent threat or judicial process, can be seen as violations of the prohibition against extrajudicial killings.

3.​


  • Accusation: Under Trump's leadership, U.S. military operations, particularly in countries like Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan, led to significant civilian casualties, some of which were attributed to airstrikes or drone attacks. In particular, Trump expanded drone warfare, which led to accusations that such strikes often lacked adequate accountability, sometimes resulting in civilian deaths.
  • Legal Context: International humanitarian law, especially the Geneva Conventions, requires that military operations distinguish between combatants and civilians, and attacks on civilians are prohibited. Critics have argued that the lack of accountability and transparency in some of these operations could potentially amount to war crimes.

4.​


  • Accusation: Trump's administration was a strong supporter of the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The conflict, which began in 2015, has led to widespread civilian casualties and a humanitarian disaster, with reports of airstrikes targeting civilian infrastructure, schools, and hospitals.
  • Legal Context: If it can be proven that the U.S. played a significant role in directing or enabling such attacks, it could be argued that it was complicit in war crimes. Critics have pointed out that the U.S. continued to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and provide military assistance despite the widespread human rights violations in Yemen.

5.​


  • Accusation: Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, which led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, drew criticism as a form of cruelty. While not directly related to traditional war crimes, some argue that the policy could be considered a form of state-sanctioned violence against vulnerable populations.
  • Legal Context: Some legal scholars have raised concerns that such actions could be considered crimes against humanity, which is a term used in international law to refer to actions that are part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians.

6.​


  • Accusation: Trump's dismissal of international norms and institutions, including his rejection of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which investigates war crimes, could be seen as an attempt to avoid accountability. His administration’s actions, particularly the “America First” stance, often placed U.S. interests above global legal standards.
  • Legal Context: While not a direct war crime, undermining global accountability mechanisms that prosecute war criminals could be seen as complicity in enabling impunity for actions that violate international law.
Click to expand...

My view: There is only one true war crime, and that is losing.

The winners don't try their own generals for war crimes. The US military is far more likely, to near 100% certainty, to charge someone criminally for doing a serious crime like murder or rape than charge them with a war crime.

On the other hand, the winner will often charge the other side's leaders with "war crimes."

So, outside of some lunatic, radical Leftist view of this subject I find your version nothing but political hate speech.
 
Grokmaster said:
On June 18, statistician and political analyst Nate Silver presented a detailed analysis of the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, which surveyed 60,000 Americans. Silver concluded that the survey shows that conservatives outnumber liberals 51% to 20% among people who report excellent mental health. And liberals outnumber conservatives 45% to 19% among voters who say they have poor mental health.

Silver found that the liberal-conservative mental health gap is fairly consistent across multiple demographics, including gender, race, age, education and income.
Click to expand...
Obvious questions here are: how adept are people in evaluating their own mental health? And how honest were the people being surveyed in reporting their evaluations? Without good answers to those questions all of this is worth shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top