You're going to have to point to an incident in which she was specifically ASKED and told a different story about the notation before you can accuse her of lying, and FOX News has had to completely change the tone of their story (which they always knew they would have to, the purpose of having it the way it was for a few hours was to inject the poison into the bloodstream). Moreover, do you think there are forgery experts who could have written the actual note portion of the message around every corner?? Beyond that, how would they have even had access to what Roy Moore's handwriting supposedly looked like to even begin a forgery?? At this point, based on what I'm seeing, Beverley Nelson should sue FOX News. And are you aware that she is Republican and a Trump voter??
"I don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did." -Roy Moore
"Let me state once again: I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone." -Roy Moore
A single day after Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Palestinians have begun protesting. There have been reports of injuries but so far no deaths. Hopefully this won't result in another full-blown uprising.
Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinian protestors today, causing the first death of the protests over Trump's Jerusalem decision.
The people who fired the killing shot deserve the blame first and foremost, but I also blame Trump for the death. It's not like nobody foresaw this. The administration should have seen this coming.
Those who call for violent protests, who incite for violence regularly, who send those Palestinians to clash with the IDF in the first place, are to be blamed first and foremost. Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at this point of time is controversial, debatable, and history will judge. But it shouldn't grant a free pass for the Palestinians different organizations, or leadership, for calling for acts of violence against Israel and the extreme incitement in their medias.
That's why I said the person who truly deserves the blame is the one who fired the shot. Ultimately, that's where the end responsibility always lies. Everything else is just an excuse.
Just a follow up on the current situation:
The Palestinian who got killed in the protests, according to Arabic sources, is Maher Attalah, a commander in the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brigade, which is the military wing of Hamas.
Also, a rocket hit 20 minutes ago in the town Sderot, no injuries.
A single day after Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Palestinians have begun protesting. There have been reports of injuries but so far no deaths. Hopefully this won't result in another full-blown uprising.
Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinian protestors today, causing the first death of the protests over Trump's Jerusalem decision.
The people who fired the killing shot deserve the blame first and foremost, but I also blame Trump for the death. It's not like nobody foresaw this. The administration should have seen this coming.
Those who call for violent protests, who incite for violence regularly, who send those Palestinians to clash with the IDF in the first place, are to be blamed first and foremost. Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at this point of time is controversial, debatable, and history will judge. But it shouldn't grant a free pass for the Palestinians different organizations, or leadership, for calling for acts of violence against Israel and the extreme incitement in their medias.
That's why I said the person who truly deserves the blame is the one who fired the shot. Ultimately, that's where the end responsibility always lies. Everything else is just an excuse.
Just a follow up on the current situation:
The Palestinian who got killed in the protests, according to Arabic sources, is Maher Attalah, a commander in the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brigade, which is the military wing of Hamas.
Also, a rocket hit 20 minutes ago in the town Sderot, no injuries.
It can be a slippery slope from here..
A slippery slope that 100% would not be happening if not for the actions of one man, enthusiastically endorsed by Netanyahu. Both of whom I believe are HOPING for bloodshed.
Incidentally, I believe Netanyahu is also embroiled in his own Trump-esque corruption scandal:
As noted before the woman says she wrote the date and place of Roy Moores signing and note on her yearbook.
If that's all you need to totally dismiss everything Roy Moore has himself said and done and you think now he's now a good person then that's kind of sad. Pinpoint and laser focus on that and ignore the rest of it.
1.) Thinks being gay should be illegal 2.) Ignored Supreme Court rulings in his role as a judge, being removed from his position TWICE 3.) Authored a Christian educational course that says that women shouldn't be able to run for office or vote 4.) Slavery apologist 5.) Child molester
"Now we have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting. What's going to unite us? What's going to bring us back together? A president? A Congress? No. It's going to be God." - Roy Moore, A Republican who wants to work for the US government
The quality of the evidence isn't just not the same, at this point, it doesn't exist on Moore's end anymore, it's guilt by accusation. When it does or if i'm missing something key, i'd happily revert positions again.
@WarChiefZeke after reading your earlier posts I went looking for the 'forgery' story you referred to, which took me to an article on Breitbart. I agree with @jjstraka34's explanation for the forgery by the way - it's perfectly obvious to me that the added note is not designed as a forgery to implicate Roy Moore (I think his own testimony had already done that, but I don't suppose you'll agree).
There may not be much point in debating further the point about the 'forgery', but I also noted in the article a further defense being raised to prepare for the point where it is proved to a legal standard that Moore did have, at the very least, a desire for companionship with younger women (and even if Moore does not sue, I imagine after today that Nelson will). The relevant paragraph is: "As far as the accusations against Moore involving his wanting to date teenage girls, those are trumped-up charges, utter nonsense. The age of consent in Alabama was and is 16. Moreover, 40 years ago, it was not at all uncommon in the South for a 32-year-old man to seek a much younger bride. So not only did Moore not break the law, he was not violating any social mores." Despite it's opening the paragraph ends by accepting that Moore was looking for girls (and not all of those concerned were 16 by the way). I know I come from a sheltered UK upbringing, but I'm also slightly suspicious as to whether it was actually the social norm to be seeking a wife in that manner in 1970's Alabama.
Actually, if you as a person are upset about, protesting, advocating and/or engaging in violence because of a purely political shift in opinion and a proposal to move an embassy then *you* are the problem, not the change in opinion. The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel; everyone else may be entitled to an opinion but those opinions are irrelevant and should be treated accordingly.
Now...that being said...do I think Israel mistreats the Palestinians? Of course I do--they have been mistreating them for years and I have stated that they definitely need to change their tactics because sometimes the actions the Israelis take exacerbate the problems. The reality in which we live, though, is one where the winners in a conflict write the history books and make the rules; whether any person likes it or not, Israel won back in 1967 and they have been making the rules ever since, for better or worse.
There will *never* be a Two State Solution, though, no matter how nicely various politicians pontificate about it. Why not? Simple--the fight is too personal and people on both sides are more concerned about "your grandfather killed my grandfather" or "your father settled on land which used to belong to my father". Without a fundamental shift in human psychology those feelings will prevent any sort of long-term peace. I wish that were not the case but I must deal with reality as it exists, not as I would like it to exist.
Speaking of dealing with reality as it exists...the reason many Palestinians are upset with this decision is because they view Jerusalem (at least East Jerusalem) as their future capital city. That doesn't make any sense. If I have been saving money for 20 years to buy my dream car (or dream house or whatever), I may think of it as "my future car" (or whatever) but if someone else buys it (or takes control of it, as in the case of the city) then it doesn't matter how much I have worked towards it or want it, that object will not be mine because it belongs to someone else. At that point I have two choices: 1) try to make a deal with that person or 2) give up on that dream and find a different one.
*************
Oh, for pity's sake--Democracy Now has an interview with a Dr. Brandy Lee, a member of the faculty at the Yale School of Medicine, where she is part of a group of psychiatrists who feel they have a "duty to warn" about Trump and potential psychiatric problems he may have. *roll eyes* Really? Seriously? Are we going to go there? If that precedent gets set then *every* future President will have a panel of psychiatrists who dislike them going on the talking head circuit to discuss which mental disorder that President may have without conducting actual medical or psychiatric tests on the subject in question.
I suppose that does pose an interesting question, though (several of them, in fact). Suppose that a President does indeed have some sort of problem which would make them unfit to continue holding office. Which physician gets to make that determination? The President's personal physician? The chief Medical Officer of the White House Staff? The Surgeon General? A panel of doctors appointed by Congress? What if high-ranking physician B disagrees with the assessment of physician A? Which physician is correct? How can you prove that a diagnosis of "unfit" was not paid for by the President's political opponents? Can the physician making the determination be trusted not to diagnose based on politics? Wouldn't that physician be granted the power to remove an elected official without the consent of the people?
Neither impeachment nor removal for medical reasons should be treated lightly and those decisions should not be made simply because you don't like someone (I am looking at you, Rep. Green--your motion was wildly premature). If you think the situation is bad now just wait until we are removing people from office because they coughed during a speech (zomg! they have pneumonia...or the flu! kick them out!) or they stumbled on some stairs (zomg! neurological disorder! kick them out!). That *will* lead to an *actual* dictator, not someone you *think* is a dictator.
*************
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
I suppose that does pose an interesting question, though (several of them, in fact). Suppose that a President does indeed have some sort of problem which would make them unfit to continue holding office. Which physician gets to make that determination? The President's personal physician? The chief Medical Officer of the White House Staff? The Surgeon General? A panel of doctors appointed by Congress? What if high-ranking physician B disagrees with the assessment of physician A? Which physician is correct? How can you prove that a diagnosis of "unfit" was not paid for by the President's political opponents? Can the physician making the determination be trusted not to diagnose based on politics? Wouldn't that physician be granted the power to remove an elected official without the consent of the people?
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Even if I disagree with what you say and believe I can substantiate it, I won't argue further about the consistency of standards since it's clearly doing more harm than good to discussing the issue and I don't want anyone feeling personally attacked.
I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't need to hold back if you still have more to say about the issue. I apologize if I was being a bit defensive.
I've not seen anyone defend Franken out of sheer partisanship in this thread, but I'll definitely concede that I've seen it elsewhere. I remember several different people in a New York Times comment section saying, in a nutshell, "Franken should resign when Trump and Moore resign." Which of course is not going to happen.
Saying "We'll do X when they do Y" is usually just a flimsy justification to avoid saying "We're not going to do X."
Actually, if you as a person are upset about, protesting, advocating and/or engaging in violence because of a purely political shift in opinion and a proposal to move an embassy then *you* are the problem, not the change in opinion. The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel; everyone else may be entitled to an opinion but those opinions are irrelevant and should be treated accordingly.
I agree completely. I opposed Trump's decision, but the appropriate response to that decision is definitely not murder and chaos.
whether any person likes it or not, Israel won back in 1967 and they have been making the rules ever since, for better or worse.
That's the one thing that Palestinians genuinely do not seem to recognize. Combating Israel with force has failed 100% of the time for 70 years in a row, because Israel is just flat-out stronger than their various enemies, especially now that Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. That power advantage has only grown as the years have gone by.
I think people find it easier to fight a futile war than to admit that they've already lost.
@Balrog99: Not true. Losing Franken is a bigger loss for the Democrats than losing Moore is for the Republicans.
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
What are you talking about? Those seats are not vacant, or if they are, it is for a very short time (days).
Why do you think we're having 52 Republican senators vote of late? Because the seat Moore is in is already taken. By Strange.
1. It was Sessions' seat. He got appointed AG of the US. 2. AL governor appointed Strange as interim senator, and set up a special election, both primary and general 3. Strange got defeated in the primary, but he still sits in the Senate, doing Senatorial things, until the election of the "real" elected senator.
The real calculus is whether the senate goes more right with 53 Republicans if Moore wins and a Republican replaces Franken's appointed replacement in the next (special) election in MN. Or if it goes to the left and becomes 51 Republicans if Moore loses to Jones, AND a Democrat wins the eventual special election for Franken's seat.
Or, the most likely case, Moore wins, and even if the Senate has the morals to boot him, AL governor appoints another temporary appointee (Strange again?), another special election is held with a more palatable Republican candidate, and the Democrats lose. Meanwhile, the Democrats hold in Minnesota, and so the Republicans continue to hold 52 seats.
Franken's replacement would be chosen by the Governor of Minnesota until elections next November. Since the Minnesota governor is a Dem I'd be inclined to believe he would choose a Democrat. No change in current power structure until an election next year that would have happened anyway.
The Moore seat is open because Sessions was appointed to the Cabinet. That's what makes it a contested seat if I understand things correctly. Therefore, if Moore drops out then the Democrat wins by default. If Franken resigns, no contested election just an appointment by a Democrat Governor. I don't think I'm wrong here.
1. Governor appoints a replacement, but also sets up a special election so the people can elect a "real" senator. Unless that state's legislature doesn't allow executive appointments like that. Apparently only 4 states don't allow such appointments. In any case, the governor MUST set up a special election to fill the Senate vacancy.
2. The Moore dropping thing is that the child predation thing exploded AFTER it was too late for a replacement, but before the election. If it had happened like a month earlier, then Moore could have been thrown under the bus without throwing the election to the Democrats by defaulting for no candidate.
Gov. Mark Dayton of MN will get to name a replacement, but, because of the rules in MN, instead of having to defend the seat in 2020, Dems have to defend yet ANOTHER seat in 2018. Which means both MN Senate seats and the governorship are up in MN next year. Given the climate in the country, and the fact that MN narrowly remained blue in 2016, I still like their chances in all 3 of those races, but MN is no different than the rest of the country (and I know because I have lived there most of my life). The Twin Cities, Rochester and Duluth (and to an extent the Iron Range because of unions) are extremely liberal. The rural areas of the state might as well be Alabama. So, Dems absolutely ARE giving something up here. They have to defend a seat 2 years early in a year where they are already defending almost 3 times as many seats as Republicans on the Senate side. Which, again, just makes the already steep, steep hill to take back BOTH chambers nearly impossible. They likely weren't going to take the Senate back anyway, but this just drains more financial resources.
I actually was not aware until I was listening to the Twin Cities top political reporter on the way home from work that this move will mandate the election be next year. Franken was supposed to be up in '20, but it's now clear that a resignation stipulates that the Governor's appointment only lasts til the next election. I am unsure if this ALSO means that the same person would have to win again in '20, or if this just means that both MN Senate seats are now going to be contested every 6 years at the same time. Regardless, even though it IS true that a Democrat is going to take this seat, it does not really put them in a very rosy situation considering the uphill climb the Senate always was. Frankly, I think it makes the decision of the caucus to turn on him more meaningful.
The person who wins in 2018 would have to win again in 2020 when the seat comes up for real. However, the special election would be sooner than next year's election.
Senate seats are on a schedule of classes (literally the word used in the Constitution). And that rotating schedule doesn't change, ever. New states' Senate seats just added in to round out the lists. SSo right now it's 33/33/34. If we had a 51st state, it'd be 3x34. If we had a 52nd, they'd randomly pick 2 of the 34s to add on. Although I'm not sure what they did in the Civil War when states LEFT.
And it's not allowed to have both senate seats in one state come up at the same time.
Actually, if you as a person are upset about, protesting, advocating and/or engaging in violence because of a purely political shift in opinion and a proposal to move an embassy then *you* are the problem, not the change in opinion. The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel; everyone else may be entitled to an opinion but those opinions are irrelevant and should be treated accordingly.
I agree completely. I opposed Trump's decision, but the appropriate response to that decision is definitely not murder and chaos.
"Upset about" and "protesting" fall under the "irrelevant" umbrella; those actions will not change anything. Trump's decision is really going to haunt his successor--if that President reverses the recognition and/or cancels the move of the embassy it will be seen as a serious diplomatic slap in the face to Israel. This was essentially a free move for Trump--it cost him nothing because people who didn't like him still won't like him but his supporters get to check off a "fulfilled one campaign promise" on their bingo card.
"Upset about" and "protesting" fall under the "irrelevant" umbrella; those actions will not change anything. Trump's decision is really going to haunt his successor--if that President reverses the recognition and/or cancels the move of the embassy it will be seen as a serious diplomatic slap in the face to Israel. This was essentially a free move for Trump--it cost him nothing because people who didn't like him still won't like him but his supporters get to check off a "fulfilled one campaign promise" on their bingo card.
Actually, this one sort of falls into the "fulfilling a promise he made to Sheldon Adelson" category (one of his top donors). The rest of the country can go fly a kite as far as this issue goes.
Frankly, it's at least a plus that this thread doesn't break down into charges of anti-Semitism the moment the government of Israel is criticized. In 2014 during the last major conflict, I had this accusation thrown at me on a liberal blog for simply vigorously opposing Netanyahu and what his government was doing. Frankly, this is a result of the decades long lobbying and propaganda campaign of AIPAC, who has turned ANY criticism of the nation of Israel into an anti-Semitic position, simply so the weapons of war can keep flowing from our defense contractors to the Israeli military.
The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel. *************
The location is your concern when you feel you have the best claim on the area especially based on your "sincerely held religious beliefs" .
It's similar to Columbus or something landing in your backyard and discovering it and claiming it. Then he goes back and France recognizes that claim. It would not be just Columbus and France's concern. The concern is the disputed claim to the territory.
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
Actually, if you as a person are upset about, protesting, advocating and/or engaging in violence because of a purely political shift in opinion and a proposal to move an embassy then *you* are the problem, not the change in opinion. The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel; everyone else may be entitled to an opinion but those opinions are irrelevant and should be treated accordingly.
I agree completely. I opposed Trump's decision, but the appropriate response to that decision is definitely not murder and chaos.
Even the "upset about, protesting" part?
I won't complain about nonviolent protests or complaints. I complained about it myself, though I wouldn't have the enthusiasm to protest or anything. I don't think it's that important in material terms, but I'd hardly begrudge people for being upset.
Ultimately, it's a symbolic move. American-Israeli relations won't change, and while Palestine (or certain segments of the population, anyway) does claim Jerusalem as their own capital, Trump's move doesn't necessarily prevent another American president from supporting or accepting a theoretical peace agreement in which part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of Palestine as well.
At most, it casts symbolic doubt over Palestine's abstract claim to Jerusalem; it doesn't change the administration or the facts on the ground by itself. The physical impact of the decision lies entirely in the reaction to it.
Actually, if you as a person are upset about, protesting, advocating and/or engaging in violence because of a purely political shift in opinion and a proposal to move an embassy then *you* are the problem, not the change in opinion. The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel; everyone else may be entitled to an opinion but those opinions are irrelevant and should be treated accordingly.
I agree completely. I opposed Trump's decision, but the appropriate response to that decision is definitely not murder and chaos.
Even the "upset about, protesting" part?
I won't complain about nonviolent protests or complaints. I complained about it myself, though I wouldn't have the enthusiasm to protest or anything. I don't think it's that important in material terms, but I'd hardly begrudge people for being upset.
Ultimately, it's a symbolic move. American-Israeli relations won't change, and while Palestine (or certain segments of the population, anyway) does claim Jerusalem as their own capital, Trump's move doesn't necessarily prevent another American president from supporting or accepting a theoretical peace agreement in which part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of Palestine as well.
At most, it casts symbolic doubt over Palestine's abstract claim to Jerusalem; it doesn't change the administration or the facts on the ground by itself. The physical impact of the decision lies entirely in the reaction to it.
The Administration didn't even think it through, evidenced by the fact that they didn't even study or contemplate the impact it would have on US diplomatic and military personal in the region. Tillerson and Mattis both opposed the move. Trump just woke up one day and thought he needed a "victory". This is a move WELL to the right of the Bush Administration. And is anyone seriously going to argue that the Bush Administration was "anti-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian"??
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
Neither impeachment nor removal for medical reasons should be treated lightly and those decisions should not be made simply because you don't like someone (I am looking at you, Rep. Green--your motion was wildly premature). If you think the situation is bad now just wait until we are removing people from office because they coughed during a speech (zomg! they have pneumonia...or the flu! kick them out!) or they stumbled on some stairs (zomg! neurological disorder! kick them out!). That *will* lead to an *actual* dictator, not someone you *think* is a dictator.
I don't know if you did this on purpose, but both of those (being sick and stumbling on stairs/fainting) were used against Clinton during the campaign to show she was not fit for office.
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
I simply don't understand how there can possibly be two answers to the question "Should people be allowed to murder innocent civilians?"
I just don't fucking get it.
The authoritarian impulses of, roughly, 33% of the population. I bet you dollars to donuts you would find an astounding overlap among Trump supporters who also support this cop (though the numbers might skew slightly because Shaver is white). Slager is literally the FIRST cop out of all these cases to be convicted. It took two trials, and there is irrefutable video of him shooting a man in the back as he is running away, and then the video continues to show him PLANTING a taser on him. Where exactly was the need for a SECOND trial with that kind of evidence?? In fact, nearly ALL of these incidents have video, otherwise they would be swept under the rug. So how many police murders do you think we AREN'T hearing about. Twice as many?? Four times as many??
Neither impeachment nor removal for medical reasons should be treated lightly and those decisions should not be made simply because you don't like someone (I am looking at you, Rep. Green--your motion was wildly premature). If you think the situation is bad now just wait until we are removing people from office because they coughed during a speech (zomg! they have pneumonia...or the flu! kick them out!) or they stumbled on some stairs (zomg! neurological disorder! kick them out!). That *will* lead to an *actual* dictator, not someone you *think* is a dictator.
I don't know if you did this on purpose, but both of those (being sick and stumbling on stairs/fainting) were used against Clinton during the campaign to show she was not fit for office.
When it was clear she had pneumonia and was exhausted from a year on the campaign trail, the right-wing media went so far as to say she had terminal illnesses she was hiding (I listened to them on Sean Hannity's radio show). Turns out she is right as rain. Meanwhile, Trump was slurring his words so badly at the end of his speech the other day you couldn't even understand what he was saying. 90% of the time, they are protecting their own candidate's weakness onto their opponent.
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
I simply don't understand how there can possibly be two answers to the question "Should people be allowed to murder innocent civilians?"
I just don't get it.
People support police, often blindly, politicians and pundits on all sides want to seem like they support police. People can twist themselves in knots inventing reasons that they can't be wrong.
"These cops are putting their lives on the line, so they should be able to shoot anyone anytime they must have had a reason. When they pull over someone, they might be stopping a guy that has a gun. I support everyone having guns so what if this makes cops nervous cops should be able to shoot anybody."
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
I simply don't understand how there can possibly be two answers to the question "Should people be allowed to murder innocent civilians?"
I just don't get it.
People support police, often blindly, politicians and pundits on all sides want to seem like they support police. People can twist themselves in knots inventing reasons that they can't be wrong.
"These cops are putting their lives on the line, so they should be able to shoot anyone anytime they must have had a reason. When they pull over someone, they might be stopping a guy that has a gun. I support everyone having guns so what if this makes cops nervous cops should be able to shoot anybody."
Something like that.
If you can't take an unarmed person into custody without shooting them, when you have (at least) a taser, a baton and mace at your disposal, then I'm sorry, but you need to go get a new job. Being a police officer isn't compulsory service. They are supposed to protect and serve, and yes, that DOES include suspects in all but the most extreme of circumstances. This isn't Judge Dredd.
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
I simply don't understand how there can possibly be two answers to the question "Should people be allowed to murder innocent civilians?"
I just don't get it.
People support police, often blindly, politicians and pundits on all sides want to seem like they support police. People can twist themselves in knots inventing reasons that they can't be wrong.
"These cops are putting their lives on the line, so they should be able to shoot anyone anytime they must have had a reason. When they pull over someone, they might be stopping a guy that has a gun. I support everyone having guns so what if this makes cops nervous cops should be able to shoot anybody."
Something like that.
If you can't take an unarmed person into custody without shooting them, when you have (at least) a taser, a baton and mace at your disposal, then I'm sorry, but you need to go get a new job. Being a police officer isn't compulsory service. They are supposed to protect and serve, and yes, that DOES include suspects in all but the most extreme of circumstances. This isn't Judge Dredd.
But you can't tell if they are armed or not. Hey that guy looks unarmed but he might have a gun in his back pocket. So you assume everyone is armed. The cop doesn't want to be wrong. If he thinks a guy doesn't have a gun and then the guy whips it out and shoots the cop dead that's a helluva thing to be wrong about. Oops, right? So Cops go around assuming everyone is armed and a threat. They have to be ready to assume things are going to jump to 11 at any second.
That is what they are taught. If you aren't vigilant; you are a dead cop. So cops are on edge. And there are a big number of them that are on power trips. Forget back and forth - you can just tell people what's to do, it's easier than figuring out the fine point of discussion that 'Heroin Jim' over there is trying to say.
Yes you can have the video later that the guy was unarmed or had a toy gun, or was reaching for his wallet, but what if it was a gun? This is also why the "good guy with a gun" stuff is ridiculous. If you are a cop coming up on two people with guns, which one is the good guy with the gun? That's like a rhetorical question there is no answer to because the cop doesn't have time to figure that out he's got to make that decision in a split second. And if he shoots the wrong guy or the guy didn't have a gun at all then most of the time he'll get away with it.
So, to recap this week, CNN story on Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks turned out to be fake. Bloomburg and WSJ story about Mueller's investigation turned out to be fake. ABC news story on Trump and Flynn turned out to be fake. It really seems like this has been the most lied about admin in recent history by a very wide margin. All the mistakes go in one direction.
@WarChiefZeke after reading your earlier posts I went looking for the 'forgery' story you referred to, which took me to an article on Breitbart. I agree with @jjstraka34's explanation for the forgery by the way - it's perfectly obvious to me that the added note is not designed as a forgery to implicate Roy Moore (I think his own testimony had already done that, but I don't suppose you'll agree).
I think we can agree that sans evidence of any kind what we have to go on is the credibility of the accuser. The accuser allowed this to be fully attributed to the accused for three weeks. She said nothing as it was read aloud, fake time and date included, and presented as his. That's really not defendable as an honest mistake, in my view, especially as this all comes after Allred was basically grilled on live T.V and refused to defend her client. I think it can be argued this is damage control at this point.
That evidence, which I had assumed to be true at the time, gave credibility to the whole bundle of them that came out at once. Now that this can be credibly doubted, I don't see what we have to go on.
That being said, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of testimony Grond. I had assumed guilt up until now basically so I admit to not having a full knowledge of his statements, just the evidence. If he said something particularly damning i'd like to hear it.
This police incident is why we need nationwide body cams in this country. These people would have gotten away with literal murder if we didn't have that sort of video evidence.
Actually, if you as a person are upset about, protesting, advocating and/or engaging in violence because of a purely political shift in opinion and a proposal to move an embassy then *you* are the problem, not the change in opinion. The location of the United States embassy in Israel is the business only between the United States and Israel; everyone else may be entitled to an opinion but those opinions are irrelevant and should be treated accordingly.
I agree completely. I opposed Trump's decision, but the appropriate response to that decision is definitely not murder and chaos.
Even the "upset about, protesting" part?
I won't complain about nonviolent protests or complaints. I complained about it myself, though I wouldn't have the enthusiasm to protest or anything. I don't think it's that important in material terms, but I'd hardly begrudge people for being upset.
Ultimately, it's a symbolic move. American-Israeli relations won't change, and while Palestine (or certain segments of the population, anyway) does claim Jerusalem as their own capital, Trump's move doesn't necessarily prevent another American president from supporting or accepting a theoretical peace agreement in which part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of Palestine as well.
At most, it casts symbolic doubt over Palestine's abstract claim to Jerusalem; it doesn't change the administration or the facts on the ground by itself. The physical impact of the decision lies entirely in the reaction to it.
I think the discussion on this is missing a significant issue. It's against international law to take many of the actions that Israel have in the occupied territories. Here's a summary of the law:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
This law is the reason why, up to now, every country in the world has regarded the settlement programme as illegal and that has been the subject of numerous UN resolutions. Israel's defense to this is that the occupied territories are not in fact "occupied" according to law, but "disputed". The legal requirement to define an area as "occupied" is that it is under the effective control of armed forces - no-one other than Israel believes that is not the case.
Or at least no-one believed that until now. The Trump regime not only is willing to go against international norms, but seems to actually glory in that. Recognising the wider Jerusalem (including the occupied part) as Israel's capital is effectively accepting that the territory is theirs in perpetuity, i.e. no longer subject to the law of occupation. While that sort of legal change would be expected as part of a settlement agreement (and that was envisaged in the 1993 Oslo agreement where the status of Jerusalem was to be agreed as part of a final deal) it is a huge deal to make it as a throwaway gesture. This is not purely a symbolic change and to expect that the Palestinians should just accept that and get on with their lives is not reasonable or realistic.
Incidentally I don't suppose that anyone is surprised that Nikki Haley (US ambassador to the UN) went on the attack yesterday. As is always the case when the Trump administration is attacked for decisions their immediate response is to attack back - Haley said that it's the UN, not the US, that's damaged the chances of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I can sort of see an argument for how the US decision can lead to peace. That goes as follows: - discussions are currently non-existent and something needs to be done to change that. - an armed conflict would stir things up nicely and enhance the chances of meaningful discussions taking place. - let's promote an armed conflict in order to act as the peace maker.
So, to recap this week, CNN story on Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks turned out to be fake. Bloomburg and WSJ story about Mueller's investigation turned out to be fake. ABC news story on Trump and Flynn turned out to be fake. It really seems like this has been the most lied about admin in recent history by a very wide margin. All the mistakes go in one direction.
@WarChiefZeke after reading your earlier posts I went looking for the 'forgery' story you referred to, which took me to an article on Breitbart. I agree with @jjstraka34's explanation for the forgery by the way - it's perfectly obvious to me that the added note is not designed as a forgery to implicate Roy Moore (I think his own testimony had already done that, but I don't suppose you'll agree).
I think we can agree that sans evidence of any kind what we have to go on is the credibility of the accuser. The accuser allowed this to be fully attributed to the accused for three weeks. She said nothing as it was read aloud, fake time and date included, and presented as his. That's really not defendable as an honest mistake, in my view, especially as this all comes after Allred was basically grilled on live T.V and refused to defend her client. I think it can be argued this is damage control at this point.
That evidence, which I had assumed to be true at the time, gave credibility to the whole bundle of them that came out at once. Now that this can be credibly doubted, I don't see what we have to go on.
That being said, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of testimony Grond. I had assumed guilt up until now basically so I admit to not having a full knowledge of his statements, just the evidence. If he said something particularly damning i'd like to hear it.
So you're saying you can't go on the credibility of EIGHT other women, just for the record. The whole bundle of "them"....."them" being girls who were teenagers who have said he sought them out, stalked them to the point of pulling them out of a trigonometry test in school by calling the principal's office and attempting to talk to them that way to avoid contact with the parents. That he approached one of the girls at a custody hearing, when she would have been at her most vulnerable. The fact that one of the accusers even remembered minor details like what brand of wine he was using to try get her drunk. The fact that scores of mall employees knew about "Creepy Roy" walking around the mall looking for young women. Gotcha.
Would the Cosby rule be enough for you?? If it reached 30 women?? 50?? I mean, clearly the 16 who have accused Donald Trump isn't enough, so it's gotta be somewhere in that range. How many women have to come forward with practically the exact same stories before anyone takes them seriously?? Because with John Conyers it was two. Gone. Franken it was between 6 and 8. Gone. With Anthony Weiner it was 1 or 2 (initially). Gone. You have been the one who is saying liberals are being disingenuous in their reasons for getting rid of Conyers and Franken, yet you yourself are flat-out rejecting the stories of nearly 90% of Roy Moore's accusers and, I would assume, ALL of Donald Trump's accusers. Because we don't have physical evidence. No one is talking about putting Roy Moore or Donald Trump in jail, these aren't criminal trials. That isn't the standard. If that was the standard Conyers and Franken wouldn't have resigned.
I don't know if you did this on purpose, but both of those (being sick and stumbling on stairs/fainting) were used against Clinton during the campaign to show she was not fit for office.
My choices were not chosen at random, I assure you.
If you can't take an unarmed person into custody without shooting them, when you have (at least) a taser, a baton and mace at your disposal, then I'm sorry, but you need to go get a new job. Being a police officer isn't compulsory service. They are supposed to protect and serve, and yes, that DOES include suspects in all but the most extreme of circumstances. This isn't Judge Dredd.
There are too many police officers who washed out of the military or couldn't make it in at all so they did the next best thing. With all of the Dept. of Homeland Security hand-me-downs police departments have been receiving in the last 15 years some local police departments are as well-outfitted as the military. Of course, one abusive cop who likes to lord his authority over people or one who is just itching for you to backtalk or question him in even the slightest way is enough to counterbalance the other 99 who spend their days actually protecting and serving people.
Every time someone mentions that police are trained to assess situations for threats I mention Tamir Rice. He got assessed for about 2 seconds before the police shot him in a city park.
Comments
You're going to have to point to an incident in which she was specifically ASKED and told a different story about the notation before you can accuse her of lying, and FOX News has had to completely change the tone of their story (which they always knew they would have to, the purpose of having it the way it was for a few hours was to inject the poison into the bloodstream). Moreover, do you think there are forgery experts who could have written the actual note portion of the message around every corner?? Beyond that, how would they have even had access to what Roy Moore's handwriting supposedly looked like to even begin a forgery?? At this point, based on what I'm seeing, Beverley Nelson should sue FOX News. And are you aware that she is Republican and a Trump voter??
"Let me state once again: I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone." -Roy Moore
The Palestinian who got killed in the protests, according to Arabic sources, is Maher Attalah, a commander in the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brigade, which is the military wing of Hamas.
Also, a rocket hit 20 minutes ago in the town Sderot, no injuries.
It can be a slippery slope from here..
Incidentally, I believe Netanyahu is also embroiled in his own Trump-esque corruption scandal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/09/israeli-police-question-benjamin-netanyahu-in-corruption-inquiry
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu-protests/tens-of-thousands-of-israelis-protest-against-netanyahu-corruption-idUSKBN1DW0Q8
Nothing like another month of bombing to get the poll numbers and public support back up.
If that's all you need to totally dismiss everything Roy Moore has himself said and done and you think now he's now a good person then that's kind of sad. Pinpoint and laser focus on that and ignore the rest of it. "Now we have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting. What's going to unite us? What's going to bring us back together? A president? A Congress? No. It's going to be God."
- Roy Moore, A Republican who wants to work for the US government
There may not be much point in debating further the point about the 'forgery', but I also noted in the article a further defense being raised to prepare for the point where it is proved to a legal standard that Moore did have, at the very least, a desire for companionship with younger women (and even if Moore does not sue, I imagine after today that Nelson will). The relevant paragraph is:
"As far as the accusations against Moore involving his wanting to date teenage girls, those are trumped-up charges, utter nonsense. The age of consent in Alabama was and is 16. Moreover, 40 years ago, it was not at all uncommon in the South for a 32-year-old man to seek a much younger bride. So not only did Moore not break the law, he was not violating any social mores."
Despite it's opening the paragraph ends by accepting that Moore was looking for girls (and not all of those concerned were 16 by the way). I know I come from a sheltered UK upbringing, but I'm also slightly suspicious as to whether it was actually the social norm to be seeking a wife in that manner in 1970's Alabama.
Now...that being said...do I think Israel mistreats the Palestinians? Of course I do--they have been mistreating them for years and I have stated that they definitely need to change their tactics because sometimes the actions the Israelis take exacerbate the problems. The reality in which we live, though, is one where the winners in a conflict write the history books and make the rules; whether any person likes it or not, Israel won back in 1967 and they have been making the rules ever since, for better or worse.
There will *never* be a Two State Solution, though, no matter how nicely various politicians pontificate about it. Why not? Simple--the fight is too personal and people on both sides are more concerned about "your grandfather killed my grandfather" or "your father settled on land which used to belong to my father". Without a fundamental shift in human psychology those feelings will prevent any sort of long-term peace. I wish that were not the case but I must deal with reality as it exists, not as I would like it to exist.
Speaking of dealing with reality as it exists...the reason many Palestinians are upset with this decision is because they view Jerusalem (at least East Jerusalem) as their future capital city. That doesn't make any sense. If I have been saving money for 20 years to buy my dream car (or dream house or whatever), I may think of it as "my future car" (or whatever) but if someone else buys it (or takes control of it, as in the case of the city) then it doesn't matter how much I have worked towards it or want it, that object will not be mine because it belongs to someone else. At that point I have two choices: 1) try to make a deal with that person or 2) give up on that dream and find a different one.
*************
Oh, for pity's sake--Democracy Now has an interview with a Dr. Brandy Lee, a member of the faculty at the Yale School of Medicine, where she is part of a group of psychiatrists who feel they have a "duty to warn" about Trump and potential psychiatric problems he may have. *roll eyes* Really? Seriously? Are we going to go there? If that precedent gets set then *every* future President will have a panel of psychiatrists who dislike them going on the talking head circuit to discuss which mental disorder that President may have without conducting actual medical or psychiatric tests on the subject in question.
I suppose that does pose an interesting question, though (several of them, in fact). Suppose that a President does indeed have some sort of problem which would make them unfit to continue holding office. Which physician gets to make that determination? The President's personal physician? The chief Medical Officer of the White House Staff? The Surgeon General? A panel of doctors appointed by Congress? What if high-ranking physician B disagrees with the assessment of physician A? Which physician is correct? How can you prove that a diagnosis of "unfit" was not paid for by the President's political opponents? Can the physician making the determination be trusted not to diagnose based on politics? Wouldn't that physician be granted the power to remove an elected official without the consent of the people?
Neither impeachment nor removal for medical reasons should be treated lightly and those decisions should not be made simply because you don't like someone (I am looking at you, Rep. Green--your motion was wildly premature). If you think the situation is bad now just wait until we are removing people from office because they coughed during a speech (zomg! they have pneumonia...or the flu! kick them out!) or they stumbled on some stairs (zomg! neurological disorder! kick them out!). That *will* lead to an *actual* dictator, not someone you *think* is a dictator.
*************
Michael Slager, who killed unarmed black motorist Walter Scott by shooting him in the back as he was running away, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shouldn't Mr. Slager have known that murdering someone results in prison time?
25A on Wikipedia
I've not seen anyone defend Franken out of sheer partisanship in this thread, but I'll definitely concede that I've seen it elsewhere. I remember several different people in a New York Times comment section saying, in a nutshell, "Franken should resign when Trump and Moore resign." Which of course is not going to happen.
Saying "We'll do X when they do Y" is usually just a flimsy justification to avoid saying "We're not going to do X." I agree completely. I opposed Trump's decision, but the appropriate response to that decision is definitely not murder and chaos. That's the one thing that Palestinians genuinely do not seem to recognize. Combating Israel with force has failed 100% of the time for 70 years in a row, because Israel is just flat-out stronger than their various enemies, especially now that Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. That power advantage has only grown as the years have gone by.
I think people find it easier to fight a futile war than to admit that they've already lost.
Why do you think we're having 52 Republican senators vote of late? Because the seat Moore is in is already taken. By Strange.
1. It was Sessions' seat. He got appointed AG of the US.
2. AL governor appointed Strange as interim senator, and set up a special election, both primary and general
3. Strange got defeated in the primary, but he still sits in the Senate, doing Senatorial things, until the election of the "real" elected senator.
The real calculus is whether the senate goes more right with 53 Republicans if Moore wins and a Republican replaces Franken's appointed replacement in the next (special) election in MN. Or if it goes to the left and becomes 51 Republicans if Moore loses to Jones, AND a Democrat wins the eventual special election for Franken's seat.
Or, the most likely case, Moore wins, and even if the Senate has the morals to boot him, AL governor appoints another temporary appointee (Strange again?), another special election is held with a more palatable Republican candidate, and the Democrats lose. Meanwhile, the Democrats hold in Minnesota, and so the Republicans continue to hold 52 seats. Two things here. The Constitution is clear, via 17th Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
1. Governor appoints a replacement, but also sets up a special election so the people can elect a "real" senator. Unless that state's legislature doesn't allow executive appointments like that. Apparently only 4 states don't allow such appointments. In any case, the governor MUST set up a special election to fill the Senate vacancy.
2. The Moore dropping thing is that the child predation thing exploded AFTER it was too late for a replacement, but before the election. If it had happened like a month earlier, then Moore could have been thrown under the bus without throwing the election to the Democrats by defaulting for no candidate. The person who wins in 2018 would have to win again in 2020 when the seat comes up for real. However, the special election would be sooner than next year's election.
Senate seats are on a schedule of classes (literally the word used in the Constitution). And that rotating schedule doesn't change, ever. New states' Senate seats just added in to round out the lists. SSo right now it's 33/33/34. If we had a 51st state, it'd be 3x34. If we had a 52nd, they'd randomly pick 2 of the 34s to add on. Although I'm not sure what they did in the Civil War when states LEFT.
And it's not allowed to have both senate seats in one state come up at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_Senators
Frankly, it's at least a plus that this thread doesn't break down into charges of anti-Semitism the moment the government of Israel is criticized. In 2014 during the last major conflict, I had this accusation thrown at me on a liberal blog for simply vigorously opposing Netanyahu and what his government was doing. Frankly, this is a result of the decades long lobbying and propaganda campaign of AIPAC, who has turned ANY criticism of the nation of Israel into an anti-Semitic position, simply so the weapons of war can keep flowing from our defense contractors to the Israeli military.
It's similar to Columbus or something landing in your backyard and discovering it and claiming it. Then he goes back and France recognizes that claim. It would not be just Columbus and France's concern. The concern is the disputed claim to the territory. Police seem to be able to get away with it the majority of the time.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The video shows a Policeman pointing a gun at Daniel Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot. Then the cop shot him. The cop was acquitted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mesa-police-shooting-daniel-shaver-seen-crawling-begging-in-disturbing-video/
Ultimately, it's a symbolic move. American-Israeli relations won't change, and while Palestine (or certain segments of the population, anyway) does claim Jerusalem as their own capital, Trump's move doesn't necessarily prevent another American president from supporting or accepting a theoretical peace agreement in which part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of Palestine as well.
At most, it casts symbolic doubt over Palestine's abstract claim to Jerusalem; it doesn't change the administration or the facts on the ground by itself. The physical impact of the decision lies entirely in the reaction to it.
I just don't fucking get it.
"These cops are putting their lives on the line, so they should be able to shoot anyone anytime they must have had a reason. When they pull over someone, they might be stopping a guy that has a gun. I support everyone having guns so what if this makes cops nervous cops should be able to shoot anybody."
Something like that.
That is what they are taught. If you aren't vigilant; you are a dead cop. So cops are on edge. And there are a big number of them that are on power trips. Forget back and forth - you can just tell people what's to do, it's easier than figuring out the fine point of discussion that 'Heroin Jim' over there is trying to say.
Yes you can have the video later that the guy was unarmed or had a toy gun, or was reaching for his wallet, but what if it was a gun? This is also why the "good guy with a gun" stuff is ridiculous. If you are a cop coming up on two people with guns, which one is the good guy with the gun? That's like a rhetorical question there is no answer to because the cop doesn't have time to figure that out he's got to make that decision in a split second. And if he shoots the wrong guy or the guy didn't have a gun at all then most of the time he'll get away with it.
That evidence, which I had assumed to be true at the time, gave credibility to the whole bundle of them that came out at once. Now that this can be credibly doubted, I don't see what we have to go on.
That being said, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of testimony Grond. I had assumed guilt up until now basically so I admit to not having a full knowledge of his statements, just the evidence. If he said something particularly damning i'd like to hear it.
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
This law is the reason why, up to now, every country in the world has regarded the settlement programme as illegal and that has been the subject of numerous UN resolutions. Israel's defense to this is that the occupied territories are not in fact "occupied" according to law, but "disputed". The legal requirement to define an area as "occupied" is that it is under the effective control of armed forces - no-one other than Israel believes that is not the case.
Or at least no-one believed that until now. The Trump regime not only is willing to go against international norms, but seems to actually glory in that. Recognising the wider Jerusalem (including the occupied part) as Israel's capital is effectively accepting that the territory is theirs in perpetuity, i.e. no longer subject to the law of occupation. While that sort of legal change would be expected as part of a settlement agreement (and that was envisaged in the 1993 Oslo agreement where the status of Jerusalem was to be agreed as part of a final deal) it is a huge deal to make it as a throwaway gesture. This is not purely a symbolic change and to expect that the Palestinians should just accept that and get on with their lives is not reasonable or realistic.
Incidentally I don't suppose that anyone is surprised that Nikki Haley (US ambassador to the UN) went on the attack yesterday. As is always the case when the Trump administration is attacked for decisions their immediate response is to attack back - Haley said that it's the UN, not the US, that's damaged the chances of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I can sort of see an argument for how the US decision can lead to peace. That goes as follows:
- discussions are currently non-existent and something needs to be done to change that.
- an armed conflict would stir things up nicely and enhance the chances of meaningful discussions taking place.
- let's promote an armed conflict in order to act as the peace maker.
That evidence, which I had assumed to be true at the time, gave credibility to the whole bundle of them that came out at once. Now that this can be credibly doubted, I don't see what we have to go on.
That being said, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of testimony Grond. I had assumed guilt up until now basically so I admit to not having a full knowledge of his statements, just the evidence. If he said something particularly damning i'd like to hear it.
So you're saying you can't go on the credibility of EIGHT other women, just for the record. The whole bundle of "them"....."them" being girls who were teenagers who have said he sought them out, stalked them to the point of pulling them out of a trigonometry test in school by calling the principal's office and attempting to talk to them that way to avoid contact with the parents. That he approached one of the girls at a custody hearing, when she would have been at her most vulnerable. The fact that one of the accusers even remembered minor details like what brand of wine he was using to try get her drunk. The fact that scores of mall employees knew about "Creepy Roy" walking around the mall looking for young women. Gotcha.
Would the Cosby rule be enough for you?? If it reached 30 women?? 50?? I mean, clearly the 16 who have accused Donald Trump isn't enough, so it's gotta be somewhere in that range. How many women have to come forward with practically the exact same stories before anyone takes them seriously?? Because with John Conyers it was two. Gone. Franken it was between 6 and 8. Gone. With Anthony Weiner it was 1 or 2 (initially). Gone. You have been the one who is saying liberals are being disingenuous in their reasons for getting rid of Conyers and Franken, yet you yourself are flat-out rejecting the stories of nearly 90% of Roy Moore's accusers and, I would assume, ALL of Donald Trump's accusers. Because we don't have physical evidence. No one is talking about putting Roy Moore or Donald Trump in jail, these aren't criminal trials. That isn't the standard. If that was the standard Conyers and Franken wouldn't have resigned.
Every time someone mentions that police are trained to assess situations for threats I mention Tamir Rice. He got assessed for about 2 seconds before the police shot him in a city park.