Breaking News: Convicted Sex Offender, power mad megolomaniac, and very disloyal American neofascist scum Loser Trump wins Iowa before going on to lose the GOP the general election again.
So where's that $400 million in cash you claimed to have in a deposition, under oath? Not willing to put up your own cash or did someone committ a little extra perjury?
Israeli forces killed three Palestinians who were armed with knives, a rifle and axes and were trying to break into a settlement in the occupied West Bank overnight between Friday and Saturday, the Israeli military said.
So...
The people from the country that legally control that land...
Broke into a "settlement" by another country that has no legal claim to that land?
This is like trying to frame the French resistance as the bad guys because the nazis totally called dibs on Paris...
Their extremists honestly think they're the victims and everyone should be on their side. And if anyone doesn't support them stealing land, the only possible reason could be antisemitism
It's what happens when you stop thinking of people from a different racial/ethnic/religious group as human.
My best guess would be they need them to defend themselves against oppression, similar to how someone in Ukraine might need them to defend themselves from Russia.
But you're right that axes are probably not enough to stop Israel.
What do you think the French resistance used to fight off Nazi invaders?
Kind words and warm baguettes?
The "settlers" often have armed IDF escorts when they take the land. And considering the IDF was still there, that might have only been hours earlier.
And that's not getting into how even as bad as this sounds...
The only thing we know is what IDF and the "settlers" say. They could have made up any story and what they're saying still makes them the obvious villains in the story.
They might have just walked up, executed these Palestinians, and then thrown some hand tools around them and cried victim.
That shit happens.
In 2024 why are you taking the word of "settlers" with no legal right to where they're settling?
Or the foreign military who have no reason to be in that foreign country to begin with except to help steal the land?
There's no justification for them to even be there.
The French Resistance wasn't stupid enough to take on an armed encampment. Then again, these were stupid kids. And it goes on. Missles still fly into Israel. Raids like this still happen.
If someone showed up to your house with a foreign government's military. And they said they're taking all your belongings and to fuck off or they'll kill you.
How many times would you start a new life from nothing before fighting back?
Would you eventually just lay down and die instead of starting over? Or do you think eventually the foreign military will kill you first if you don't put your hands up fast enough?
What would you do in their shoes if this was such a terrible plan?
This doesn't even matter. Unless he's barred from the general election ballot, he's already won the GOP primaries. Haley just won't cave until she's forced to.
It kind of does, in that when states see something blatantly unconstitutional they shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to say it. Start the procedure and than wait if the Court says it needs to review it, sure.
First I'll say I can't stand trump and I absolutely believe he participated in insurrection and as such should be barred from holding federal office.
*With that being said...*the fact remains that he's not yet been legally convicted/proven of having done so.
I believe it, you believe it, lots of people believe it, and it may well be fact...but there's been no legal decision that says he participated in an insurrection.
Without that legal ruling...and I can't believe I'm saying this...I don't think that states should be able to strike him from national elections based on a federal level law.
It's less a matter of how I feel about the actual subject and much more because of the legal precedent and implications. Basically, without a legal conviction here, these states are saying, "We (a nebulous definition here that could be as collective as the personally held opinions of a single judge) feel that this person did something so against the best interests of the country that it amounts to insurrection, therefore we're removing that person from our ballots."
And while I agree with them in this specific case, it's not difficult to imagine that, with a precedent like this, you get purple states with a GOP judge, state supreme court, governor, etc. that decide that the Dem candidate in a future election has acted so against their view of the best interests of the nation that they decide it amounts to insurrection and therefore that candidate will be removed from their ballot.
At that point, every single election will be about attempts to remove candidates from ballots in the courts, cheapening and perverting the intentions of 14-3.
To prevent that, IMHO, it needs to be up to the federal level of courts to make such a decision, to say for certain whether a person has violated 14-3, at which point that ruling decides their appearance on a ballot automatically.
Yes, it's unfortunate because in this case a ruling like that from a federal court is unlikely (and if it comes down, it's unlikely to withstand SCOTUS and/or get a horribly muddying ruling like "yes he did insurrection but no, we aren't going to enforce 14-3") but taking the long view of rule of law and judicial precedent, I just feel that states deciding this matter without trial or conviction is opening Pandora's box.
Cmon now, there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”
This is like arguing that we can’t punish a murderer with jail time because people will start trying to punish people they disagree with, with jail time.
Someone accused of murder? Even if it's by millions of people? Without a conviction, don't touch them.
there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”
I agree.
But without any official legal declaration of the latter, it's no more substantial than the former...and I'll give you one guess as to which side of the American political system is more willing to abuse that.
I'm not saying Trump should be guaranteed to appear on ballots no matter what...I'm just saying that before he's removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.
Once that's officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.
And for what it's worth, IMHO, at that point it should be invoked nationwide. As soon as that ruling comes down, Trump is, as a function of that ruling, prevented from appearing on any ballot for any national office, in all states, effective immediately. Any write-in votes for the ineligible candidate are also discarded.
The other side of that coin is judges deliberately dragging their feet on the matter to make sure he is able to be on the ballot.
We just had the Supreme Court say “yeah, maybe he does have presidential immunity” and delay the proceedings by 90 days instead of taking it up immediately, or just refusing to hear the case.
So our choices are “ignore the insurrection and let him be on the general ballot” and “hold him accountable at the state level.”
Basically, fucked if we do, and fucked if we don’t. But at least this way they are upholding the constitution.
That’s in part why this is the case the USSC has taken up. It is now established legal fact that Trump participated in insurrection, but 14-3 isn’t super clear that it pertains to POTUS, unlike the clarity for Senators and Representatives.
So there’s no question of guilt. That’s established. It’s now a question of applicability.
My point was that I feel it should be decided at the federal level, not the state level. The ruling of a Colorado court as to what happened in an area completely outside their jurisdiction shouldn't really matter.
The SCOTUS ruling will be that decision, and while I'm not optimistic that they'll rule to disqualify Trump through 14-3, at least there will be an answer.
There's still room for the USSC to also declare that the state courts finding of fact is incorrect. If I recall the legal analysis, I think that was the consensus as the likely outcome, that the state's finding is not substantiated. There seemed to be doubt that the "doesn't apply" argument will hold, but that will be moot if they say that the Colorado state court can't unilaterally make that finding.
Problem being is that the federal system has shied away from declaring him an insurrectionist, and it's kind of weird to proceed without the backing of a federal ruling toward the end of enforcing a federal amendment.
It's a bit disheartening that the justice system spent 4 years with the most obvious evidence on the planet and did not proceed for fear of looking 'too political'. But as a consequence, I think the states deciding to act on that amendment are lacking the substance to justify their move.
It's maddening because everyone knows he worked to subvert the free and fair election (the insurrection in my mind is superseded by the whole fake electors/attempted election tampering). But the courts in a position to credibly do something directly on the issue have drug their feet too long.
States have always been the arbiters of eligibility. Taking that away would be novel and against precedent.
The threat of his base retaliating isn't a reason not to do it. That's just a large criminal conspiracy, just like if a cartel or gang threatened prosecutors.
Haley is clearly staying in for the likely reality that Trump is found guilty and the small chance that the Republican party chooses not to have a convicted federal criminal as their candidate. She knows based on the numbers she has no shot, but she's angling to stay in so she can swoop in when Trump is disqualified.
How likely that is to happen to up to interpretation, but it's pretty clear at this point that's Haley's game plan.
Haley is clearly staying in for the likely reality that Trump is found guilty and the small chance that the Republican party chooses not to have a convicted federal criminal as their candidate
And because Trump is old and unhealthy and could pass away
Also possibilities:
-Trump passes away
-Trump leaves the country
-Trump runs but loses, and Haley gets "told you so" status as the GOP likely tosses Trump under the bus for delivering so many consecutive losses (2018, his own in 2020, and to some extent the weak 2022 performance can be attributed to his election denial and the party rallying behind that). If the GOP loses in 2024, then I could easily see the party decide they must go 'beyond Trump', and politicians that consistently looked 'anti-Trump' may be in a strong position in that scenario.
Seeing as she is in her early 50s, which is downright an infant by the standards of the presidential race, she can afford to run a long game of prepping for a likely 2028 race.
Of course if Trump wins in 2024, her political career won't go anywhere, but it's a fair bet to plan for the contingency of him losing.
Far right authoritarians would kill for this scenario. Look at how much American conservatives try to make it sound like Mexico is going to invade, because when people are scared, they vote for far right authoritarians
For fucks sake, Israel has been letting suitcases of cash pass from Israel to Hamas for years so they can stay operational.
Same applies to Hamas. Why would they want peace when the leadership can live in luxury and remain in permanent control? If it means forcing every Palestinian to be a martyr, that's just the price they're willing to pay.
Hamas and Netanyahu's government very much have a mutually beneficial relationship.
Seems like a terrible investment, I can’t see what they can possibly do to add value. Everybody who wants to use Reddit is already on it and anything they do to try and milk it will just lose them users.
I've had the impression for a long time that Reddit could stand to lose a large part of its users in order to be more profitiable. The nerds getting into long winded "ackchually" "debates" are making the site worse for the meme scrollers and they are also not the type to click on ads. They're not trying to attract more users, they want to maximise revenue from the existing pool. I don't think it's a coincidence Reddit has been slowly moving away from "discussion board" and towards image and short video (like the other three big platforms) because that's where the money's at.
My prediction is that shortly after the IPO we'll see .old go away, and a further sterilizing of subreddits ability to forge unique identities. The only question I have is how do they expect to attract sufficient moderators, buuuut they haven't had trouble after the API debacle so maybe there are more people willing to provide free labor than I assume!
The only question I have is how do they expect to attract sufficient moderators
I mean YouTube comment sections were known for years to be an unmoderated nightmare of just people saying the absolute dumbest shit.
YouTube was and still is the most popular video site.
I think reddit has just stopped caring about the real content of the comments since, like you said, they've pretty much pivoted to images and video. Expect the comments section to be further eroded as well, in the name of needing less moderation. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Reddit do an "AI" push where the "AI" is mostly just replacing moderators with what amounts to a more advanced automod.
FBI has been infiltrated by far right groups, especially white supremacists, for several decades. It probably HAS gotten worse since literal fascism became mainstream, though..
J Edgar Hoover? Nah, he hated communists and enthusiastically supported South American, Middle Eastern, and African fascist dictators. As was the style at the time (and more or less secretly still is).
If you're waiting for the FBI to suppress right wing paramilitary groups, you're in for a predictable disappointment. We keep each other safe from these fuckers by showing up and backing them down.
I’ve been out there and was called a “race traitor” for filming a black woman at a protest. Trust me I don’t need to be educated on how dangerous they are lol
"I love my son Tyler, who has been through some very difficult, public challenges for a young man and the subject of attention that he didn't ask for," the statement said.
She did this by fostering a circus like atmosphere and trying to be Sarah Palin 2.0. I don't even know the names of any other Reps from Colorado, much less anything about their kids. She forced herself and her family into the limelight. Can't blame unwanted attention for being a shitty little criminal. I'd say bad parenting is the more likely culprit.
I don't know anything about him, but I do feel sorry for him. She seems like a horrible person, and an even worse mom. Imagine having her as a mom, and then everyone around knowing her and most hating her. It's got to be tough mentally.
I have zero pity for her. She asked for it and chose to be a shitty person.
reuters.com
Top