That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
Good article. What he says about the nonsensical idea that Donald Trump's success is all down to his opponents saying things that offend his base is spot on imo. I see shades of this in the immigration and 'multiculturalism' debate over here. If we don't embrace far right rhetoric and priorities we're going to end up with a far right government (is how it goes). So if that happens it'll be 'our' fault not the fault of those who vote for it. Because they're just automatons or something.
The sane answer is to admit there are issues and deal with them in a non far right manner.
A number of Biden’s policies on the economy are exactly that.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Israel have murdered very few (though still more than they should have, which is zero).
Hamas set out to murder: to kill Jews - any of them, children, the elderly, women, whatever. That was their objective. That is what murder is.
Israel did not set out to kill Palestinians (other than Hamas fighters, who are a legitimate target in war). That Palestinian civilians have died in the conflict was always going to be an inevitable consequence of urban fighting. That is not murder. (FWIW, I think Israel has been reckless in its actions and has paid insufficient attention to civilian casualties at times. Still a different thing though).
By using the same language for the two, you're creating a legal and moral equivalence - and to cite those numbers in that framing is to legitimise Hamas or delegitimise Israel. Or both.
Think carefully.
I disagree.
The current Israeli leadership have set out to murder. They may not have murdered as many innocent people as Hamas (though they have certainly 'killed' far more innocents than Hamas) but this is not a numbers game. Murder is murder and both Hamas and Netenyahu's cabal should be rotting in jail - or preferably Hell.
I've not said that some members of the IDF haven't murdered, or that the IDF's tactics haven't, at times, been so dismissive of civilian casualties that the operations went beyond the bounds of international law. Those responsible should be held accountable.
However, Israel does have a legitimate cause for military action and a war aim of the removal of the Hamas regime seems to me to be legitimate in the circumstances both of the Oct 7 attack and Hamas's stated aims (whether or not it's achievable is another thing). If that's so then urban warfare must inevitably result, with all that means for the surrounding civilian population.
If Israel goes beyond that and uses the opportunity to raze as much of Gaza's infrastructure, including housing, as possible with the intent of driving out the population, that too would be a war crime. And there has to be the concern that some within the regime, including Netenyahu, are doing exactly that.
Very fair post. Many people miss that Israel believes this is a war. With all that that entails.
Wars are ugly, civilians die, shit happens.
Hamas is the government of Gaza. It's not some rogue "militant" (BBC) group operating without the authority of the government of Gaza. It is the government of Gaza. And they decided to attack Israel.
If people don't like war because of the civilian deaths fair enough. I get that. But it is a war. No country, apart I think from Costa Rica, has not waged what they believe has been a just(ifield) war.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
I would like Hamas eradicated, but your premise is flawed.
If innocents are killed as collateral in a surgical attack on Hamas operatives that is an unfortunate but necessary execution of a war. However bombing a random block of flats in the hope that there might be a Hamas terrorist within is not within the oxymoronic notion of the "rules of war".
The utterly unacceptable "shoot first ask questions later" execution of three Israeli hostages by the IDF, and the sniping of Christian Palestinians holed up in a Church is simply wicked. Or, on the last point do you agree with the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem who claimed in an interview with Nick Ferrari there are no Churches and no Christians in Gaza.
Israel has the right to protect itself, but as this war progresses it becomes clearer that this war is to protect Bibi rather than Israel.
The killing of the escaped hostages does have to be viewed in the context of a war in which Hamas has repeatedly launched ambushes, using operatives waving white flags and pretending to surrender as traps.
And also in the context that Israeli jails are now filled to bursting point with hundreds of Hamas operatives who have successfully surrendered in the past few weeks. Clearly the IDF doesn't get everything right - no army does, or can - but the policy you claim clearly does not exist.
The escaped hostages had raised white flags and were speaking Hebrew. The two were killed instantly and the one survivor was shot dead despite orders from officers not to shoot. The IDF are out of control. Maybe understandable in the light of the atrocities of October 7. But please don't excuse such behaviour as acceptable during the fog of war. There is clearly an arbitrary "shoot to kill policy. If there wasn't, those three Israeli lads would still be alive.
The interesting question was the one asked by Misha Hussein to Mark Regev 'Doesn't shooting three naked hostages waving a white flag show your complete disregard for the rules of war and for human life if you think it's Palestinian?'
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Means he can be kicked off the ballots in other states.
If it happens in a swing state, that’s the big news.
It shows a polarisation not seen since 1860 - Lincoln wasn’t in the ballot in a number states
I don't think you're right in your conclusion, if SCOTUS were to uphold the reasons for the Colorado ruling. Just possibly Colorado were entitled to exclude him from the primary for rather boring reasons of state law instead, but that wouldn't really be "upholding" the decision. Certainly the Colorado Supreme Court argument is that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from being President under the 14th amendment (and, at the state level, they only allow people who are constitutionally eligible to actually serve to be on the ballot).
There really isn't a way of SCOTUS deciding that although Colorado are correct, Missouri can decide differently if they like, and if Trump is elected he's President. The whole point of SCOTUS is to ensure the US Constitution is interpreted the same in all US states - you literally cannot have a situation where Trump is treated is disqualified from being President in California but not Texas - you don't then have a United States.
Indeed, if you look at the history of the 14th amendment, it was a post-Civil War reconstruction amendment to ensure that disqualification from certain offices would be determined at the federal level. The concern was precisely that Senators and others would be legally recognised by Confederate states but not Union states.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
I would like Hamas eradicated, but your premise is flawed.
If innocents are killed as collateral in a surgical attack on Hamas operatives that is an unfortunate but necessary execution of a war. However bombing a random block of flats in the hope that there might be a Hamas terrorist within is not within the oxymoronic notion of the "rules of war".
The utterly unacceptable "shoot first ask questions later" execution of three Israeli hostages by the IDF, and the sniping of Christian Palestinians holed up in a Church is simply wicked. Or, on the last point do you agree with the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem who claimed in an interview with Nick Ferrari there are no Churches and no Christians in Gaza.
Israel has the right to protect itself, but as this war progresses it becomes clearer that this war is to protect Bibi rather than Israel.
The killing of the escaped hostages does have to be viewed in the context of a war in which Hamas has repeatedly launched ambushes, using operatives waving white flags and pretending to surrender as traps.
And also in the context that Israeli jails are now filled to bursting point with hundreds of Hamas operatives who have successfully surrendered in the past few weeks. Clearly the IDF doesn't get everything right - no army does, or can - but the policy you claim clearly does not exist.
The escaped hostages had raised white flags and were speaking Hebrew. The two were killed instantly and the one survivor was shot dead despite orders from officers not to shoot. The IDF are out of control. Maybe understandable in the light of the atrocities of October 7. But please don't excuse such behaviour as acceptable during the fog of war. There is clearly an arbitrary "shoot to kill policy. If there wasn't, those three Israeli lads would still be alive.
Again: how on earth are Hamas operatives surrendering if IDF policy is to shoot them on sight, regardless of white flags etc?
The fact that you think an army operating a "shoot to kill" policy in a warzone is somehow evidence of being "out of control" is very telling, though.
I believe the IDF have every right to extinguish Hamas fighters. I don't understand how you can dismiss the summary execution of three Israeli hostages as one of those things that happens in the fog of war.
I listen to Regev and Levy so I am aware of your defence of the IDF. If those three lads were my children I would be very upset with Netanyahu and the military.
I have no argument with the notion that Israel is entitled to defend itself against a death cult. I dispute that defeating Hamas is Bibi's primary aim.
Something unplanned occurs in fog of war shocker.
What an ignorant snowflake you are.
How many blue on blue (or indeed green on blue) incidents do you think there are in any given conflict.
There are loads of friendly fire fatalities in war, and this is likely to be no exception. This was a bit more nuanced than friendly fire.
"Ignorant snowflake", I don't think sums up my position on Israel's right to defeat Hamas which I have promoted through this thread. But unlike @TOPPING I am no Five Star General, so I can't comment to much on the minutiae of combat, but I have a pair of eyes, and a reasonable grasp of right and wrong.
It's tricky. I don't know the exact details but I do know that Hamas will ignore the "conventions" of war to gain advantage. Now of course I am the first person to say all's fair in love and war but facing Hamas my trigger finger would be itchy.
I know all that, but these were shirtless Israelis with white flags on sticks. It doesn't look like much effort was made to determine whether they were Hamas or otherwise. The IDF are doing Bibi's bidding for him. That would be a fundamental red flag for me.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Means he can be kicked off the ballots in other states.
If it happens in a swing state, that’s the big news.
It shows a polarisation not seen since 1860 - Lincoln wasn’t in the ballot in a number states
Who was the last major (Dem/Rep) presidential candidate not to be on a state's ballot? IIRC, it was quite normal for Republicans not to be on ballots in the Deep South pre-Civil Rights - although from a quick scan it looks like Johnson wasn't on the Alabama ballot in 1964, which might be the most recent?
Truman wasn't on several states in the south in 1948, but obviously Wallace's hissy fit in 1964 was more recent than that.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Is there no middle view possible? Many of those 20,000 were innocent. Israel has a right to go after Hamas. Israel does not have a right to use excessive force against civilians, or indeed to continue building settlements on occupied territories or to annex Palestinian territory.
I agree with that. Thousands of innocents have been killed by the IDF. The proportion of civilian deaths I’ve read is 61-66%. By way of comparison, when Mosul was taken in 2017, civilian deaths were 45% of the total. That does suggest that the US and Kurds were more discriminate than the IDF.
Sunil’s view is that if Hamas kills 1,400, the IDF can also kill 1,400, but no more. That’s not how the LOAC work.
It's a classic sign of autism.
To autistic people numbers are very logical.
Here we go again. Autism as a slur, albeit this time with a sugar coated caveat enclosed.
It's a classic sign of psychopathy.
To psychopaths empathy is very difficult.
Autistic people or Casino? I am not sure what point you are making. Neither hopefully.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Means he can be kicked off the ballots in other states.
If it happens in a swing state, that’s the big news.
It shows a polarisation not seen since 1860 - Lincoln wasn’t in the ballot in a number states
I don't think you're right in your conclusion, if SCOTUS were to uphold the reasons for the Colorado ruling. Just possibly Colorado were entitled to exclude him from the primary for rather boring reasons of state law instead, but that wouldn't really be "upholding" the decision. Certainly the Colorado Supreme Court argument is that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from being President under the 14th amendment (and, at the state level, they only allow people who are constitutionally eligible to actually serve to be on the ballot).
There really isn't a way of SCOTUS deciding that although Colorado are correct, Missouri can decide differently if they like, and if Trump is elected he's President. The whole point of SCOTUS is to ensure the US Constitution is interpreted the same in all US states - you literally cannot have a situation where Trump is treated is disqualified from being President in California but not Texas - you don't then have a United States.
Indeed, if you look at the history of the 14th amendment, it was a post-Civil War reconstruction amendment to ensure that disqualification from certain offices would be determined at the federal level. The concern was precisely that Senators and others would be legally recognised by Confederate states but not Union states.
If they uphold the Colorado ruling, he and all his close associates are ineligible to be President.
It seems unlikely the current SCOTUS will decide that.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Means he can be kicked off the ballots in other states.
If it happens in a swing state, that’s the big news.
It shows a polarisation not seen since 1860 - Lincoln wasn’t in the ballot in a number states
Here's hoping.
Hoping for a repeat of the Civil War?
Ideally they'll stick with the Culture one. But by hook or by crook Donald Trump does need dealing with. You can't keep appeasing bad people because of how bad they are.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Israel have murdered very few (though still more than they should have, which is zero).
Hamas set out to murder: to kill Jews - any of them, children, the elderly, women, whatever. That was their objective. That is what murder is.
Israel did not set out to kill Palestinians (other than Hamas fighters, who are a legitimate target in war). That Palestinian civilians have died in the conflict was always going to be an inevitable consequence of urban fighting. That is not murder. (FWIW, I think Israel has been reckless in its actions and has paid insufficient attention to civilian casualties at times. Still a different thing though).
By using the same language for the two, you're creating a legal and moral equivalence - and to cite those numbers in that framing is to legitimise Hamas or delegitimise Israel. Or both.
Think carefully.
I disagree.
The current Israeli leadership have set out to murder. They may not have murdered as many innocent people as Hamas (though they have certainly 'killed' far more innocents than Hamas) but this is not a numbers game. Murder is murder and both Hamas and Netenyahu's cabal should be rotting in jail - or preferably Hell.
Netanyahu and his clique should indeed be in gaol. He's been a cancer in Israeli politics for 30 years.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
As I've said previously, I'm very doubtful SCOTUS would uphold it (and am not convinced they'd be wrong to overturn the Colorado decision - although I do see the argument and they put it very well in the decision).
However, I think the implications of upholding the Colorado decision in full would be bigger than you suggest. I think they would necessarily be saying Trump was ineligible to be President under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I don't think there's a meaningful way to say "this is a state rights issue - individual states can decide if Trump is eligible to be President under the US Constitution or not, and act accordingly". He simply can't be eligible to be US President in Missouri but not in Kansas.
There are obviously things they can do short of fully upholding the Colorado decision. An interesting one would be if they said that Colorado was right in saying the 14th amendment covers the office of President, but erred in saying it could apply absent a conviction. Because there could, of course, be a conviction in due course, whether before or even after the election.
If they were to say Colorado is wrong but only because there's no conviction that would set up his trial, when it comes, as deciding whether Trump can stand or (if he's been elected) continue as president. To me that sounds like a burden the trial could not bear.
No it wouldn't, because he's not actually been charged with sedition or treason.
He should have been, of course, but he hasn't.
This is also another reason why I'm dubious about the 14th. If there's insufficient evidence for a jury to convict, or they feel a trial couldn't be fair, then I don't think judges should be deciding the issue themselves.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Means he can be kicked off the ballots in other states.
If it happens in a swing state, that’s the big news.
It shows a polarisation not seen since 1860 - Lincoln wasn’t in the ballot in a number states
I don't think you're right in your conclusion, if SCOTUS were to uphold the reasons for the Colorado ruling. Just possibly Colorado were entitled to exclude him from the primary for rather boring reasons of state law instead, but that wouldn't really be "upholding" the decision. Certainly the Colorado Supreme Court argument is that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from being President under the 14th amendment (and, at the state level, they only allow people who are constitutionally eligible to actually serve to be on the ballot).
There really isn't a way of SCOTUS deciding that although Colorado are correct, Missouri can decide differently if they like, and if Trump is elected he's President. The whole point of SCOTUS is to ensure the US Constitution is interpreted the same in all US states - you literally cannot have a situation where Trump is treated is disqualified from being President in California but not Texas - you don't then have a United States.
Indeed, if you look at the history of the 14th amendment, it was a post-Civil War reconstruction amendment to ensure that disqualification from certain offices would be determined at the federal level. The concern was precisely that Senators and others would be legally recognised by Confederate states but not Union states.
If they uphold the Colorado ruling, he and all his close associates are ineligible to be President.
It seems unlikely the current SCOTUS will decide that.
I consider it inconceivable that SCOTUS would uphold the ruling.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
I would like Hamas eradicated, but your premise is flawed.
If innocents are killed as collateral in a surgical attack on Hamas operatives that is an unfortunate but necessary execution of a war. However bombing a random block of flats in the hope that there might be a Hamas terrorist within is not within the oxymoronic notion of the "rules of war".
The utterly unacceptable "shoot first ask questions later" execution of three Israeli hostages by the IDF, and the sniping of Christian Palestinians holed up in a Church is simply wicked. Or, on the last point do you agree with the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem who claimed in an interview with Nick Ferrari there are no Churches and no Christians in Gaza.
Israel has the right to protect itself, but as this war progresses it becomes clearer that this war is to protect Bibi rather than Israel.
The killing of the escaped hostages does have to be viewed in the context of a war in which Hamas has repeatedly launched ambushes, using operatives waving white flags and pretending to surrender as traps.
And also in the context that Israeli jails are now filled to bursting point with hundreds of Hamas operatives who have successfully surrendered in the past few weeks. Clearly the IDF doesn't get everything right - no army does, or can - but the policy you claim clearly does not exist.
The escaped hostages had raised white flags and were speaking Hebrew. The two were killed instantly and the one survivor was shot dead despite orders from officers not to shoot. The IDF are out of control. Maybe understandable in the light of the atrocities of October 7. But please don't excuse such behaviour as acceptable during the fog of war. There is clearly an arbitrary "shoot to kill policy. If there wasn't, those three Israeli lads would still be alive.
Again: how on earth are Hamas operatives surrendering if IDF policy is to shoot them on sight, regardless of white flags etc?
The fact that you think an army operating a "shoot to kill" policy in a warzone is somehow evidence of being "out of control" is very telling, though.
Are you outing another anti semite or does your cryptic 'is very telling' refer to something else. Frankly I find your infantile search for clues of anti semitism in order to shut down debate embarrassing
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
Good article. What he says about the nonsensical idea that Donald Trump's success is all down to his opponents saying things that offend his base is spot on imo. I see shades of this in the immigration and 'multiculturalism' debate over here. If we don't embrace far right rhetoric and priorities we're going to end up with a far right government (is how it goes). So if that happens it'll be 'our' fault not the fault of those who vote for it. Because they're just automatons or something.
The sane answer is to admit there are issues and deal with them in a non far right manner.
A number of Biden’s policies on the economy are exactly that.
Indeed. It's now for the voters of America to show what they're made of. I have faith in them and in the 'system' over there, that between them they'll prevent Trump2. My Big Short on him is essentially betting that view. If I'm wrong ... no, not going there, I'm not.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
Ah yes, your scurrilous theory that the Left are forever seeking to champion the poor, the dispossessed, the powerless.
Until they achieve what the Left says it wants for them and they stop being poor or dispossessed or powerless. And then they are the enemy. cf working class boys done good in the UK. They are now part of the oppressor class.
I suppose living your life in primary colours and regurgitating leftist orthodoxy is much easier. Especially if you are too scared to form your own opinions about much at all
Anything except 'Israel Good Palestine Bad' is Leftist Orthodoxy in your eyes, though, isn't it. It's striking because you're not usually to the extreme Right on any particular issue. If you don't mind sharing I'd be interested in how you've arrived at such a strident pro-Israel position and how it remains unshaken even as they lay waste to the entire Gaza Strip. Tesco now (for my sins) but I'll check back later and see if there's something sincere and enlightening on offer.
I think @Sean_F sums it up well a couple of posts ago.
Enjoy Tesco's. Your nod to the mores of the working class I'm sure. They still hate you as a class traitor though.
my mother used to boycott Tesco because of their connections to Shirley Porter and her policies around council homes in London.
What were Tesco's connections to Shirley Porter and her policies around homes in London?
Her father was Jack Cohen, the founder of and the “Co” in Tesco
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Nothing direct, but the indirect effect IMV would be that other states would look to disbar him as well
The latest in my holiday transport odyssey, we reached the booth where the man told us we’re being “exited”, they’ve stopped giving out vouchers for P&O, so we’re on our own. So we booked a late night ferry crossing and will be rocking up at our airbnb in Northern France sometime after midnight, inshallah.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
As I've said previously, I'm very doubtful SCOTUS would uphold it (and am not convinced they'd be wrong to overturn the Colorado decision - although I do see the argument and they put it very well in the decision).
However, I think the implications of upholding the Colorado decision in full would be bigger than you suggest. I think they would necessarily be saying Trump was ineligible to be President under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I don't think there's a meaningful way to say "this is a state rights issue - individual states can decide if Trump is eligible to be President under the US Constitution or not, and act accordingly". He simply can't be eligible to be US President in Missouri but not in Kansas.
There are obviously things they can do short of fully upholding the Colorado decision. An interesting one would be if they said that Colorado was right in saying the 14th amendment covers the office of President, but erred in saying it could apply absent a conviction. Because there could, of course, be a conviction in due course, whether before or even after the election.
If they were to say Colorado is wrong but only because there's no conviction that would set up his trial, when it comes, as deciding whether Trump can stand or (if he's been elected) continue as president. To me that sounds like a burden the trial could not bear.
No it wouldn't, because he's not actually been charged with sedition or treason.
He should have been, of course, but he hasn't.
This is also another reason why I'm dubious about the 14th. If there's insufficient evidence for a jury to convict, or they feel a trial couldn't be fair, then I don't think judges should be deciding the issue themselves.
He was charged with incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment, though obviously that failed to be convicted (despite a 57-43 majority in the Senate).
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
Well, it can be. Ethnic cleansing settles the issue forever.
The alternative is to assimilate the subject people, but that usually requires giving them a stake in the system.
Perhaps the lesson is that to be successful it needs to be absolute oppression or active integration. The former = ethnic cleansing and is generally frowned upon now of course.
The Norman invasion might be an example of severe oppression short of ethnic cleansing that was never really overthrown, I guess?
The Normans were successful imperialists because they gradually assimilated to the local population.
.
If you have any spare time over the holidays, you might wish to brush up on your history as to how the Norman Conquest went? It was centuries before the locals could speak their own language in any official context and the handful of invaders took possession of almost all the property. And so was born the English class system, which we still experience today.
All true of course. But in the end, unless I am mistaken, the Normans spoke English not French and England became, er, England not North Normandy.
So the Norman toffs did eventually assimilate. Probably made easier by dint of continuing to own all the land they'd stolen.
You are mistaken. Our language today consists to a large degree of the French language they brought with them.
An interesting example of this, which I used when teaching the Norman conquest, is the different names for animals and their meat.
Cows produce beef Sheep produce mutton
Deer produce venison Pigs produce pork
Because the Saxons looks after the animal, but the Normans ate it.
So the animal is named for the Saxon word and the meat for the French word for the same animal (bouef, mouton, porcer - veni comes from 'chase').
It's an easy way to tell who was in charge. When it was in a cold, wet, muddy field covered in sh...stuff it was Saxon, when roasted, garnished, and served as a tasty dish it was Norman.
Yeah that's an old châtaigne (although French for deer is cerf n'est-ce pas?)
'Veni comes from 'chase''...it was a reference to how the Normans *got* the meat.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
Well, it can be. Ethnic cleansing settles the issue forever.
The alternative is to assimilate the subject people, but that usually requires giving them a stake in the system.
Perhaps the lesson is that to be successful it needs to be absolute oppression or active integration. The former = ethnic cleansing and is generally frowned upon now of course.
The Norman invasion might be an example of severe oppression short of ethnic cleansing that was never really overthrown, I guess?
The Normans were successful imperialists because they gradually assimilated to the local population.
.
If you have any spare time over the holidays, you might wish to brush up on your history as to how the Norman Conquest went? It was centuries before the locals could speak their own language in any official context and the handful of invaders took possession of almost all the property. And so was born the English class system, which we still experience today.
All true of course. But in the end, unless I am mistaken, the Normans spoke English not French and England became, er, England not North Normandy.
So the Norman toffs did eventually assimilate. Probably made easier by dint of continuing to own all the land they'd stolen.
You are mistaken. Our language today consists to a large degree of the French language they brought with them.
An interesting example of this, which I used when teaching the Norman conquest, is the different names for animals and their meat.
Cows produce beef Sheep produce mutton
Deer produce venison Pigs produce pork
Because the Saxons looks after the animal, but the Normans ate it.
So the animal is named for the Saxon word and the meat for the French word for the same animal (bouef, mouton, porcer - veni comes from 'chase').
It's an easy way to tell who was in charge. When it was in a cold, wet, muddy field covered in sh...stuff it was Saxon, when roasted, garnished, and served as a tasty dish it was Norman.
Yeah that's an old châtaigne (although French for deer is cerf n'est-ce pas?)
'Veni comes from 'chase''...it was a reference to how the Normans *got* the meat.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Is there no middle view possible? Many of those 20,000 were innocent. Israel has a right to go after Hamas. Israel does not have a right to use excessive force against civilians, or indeed to continue building settlements on occupied territories or to annex Palestinian territory.
I agree with that. Thousands of innocents have been killed by the IDF. The proportion of civilian deaths I’ve read is 61-66%. By way of comparison, when Mosul was taken in 2017, civilian deaths were 45% of the total. That does suggest that the US and Kurds were more discriminate than the IDF.
Sunil’s view is that if Hamas kills 1,400, the IDF can also kill 1,400, but no more. That’s not how the LOAC work.
It's a classic sign of autism.
To autistic people numbers are very logical.
Here we go again. Autism as a slur, albeit this time with a sugar coated caveat enclosed.
It's a classic sign of psychopathy.
To psychopaths empathy is very difficult.
Autistic people or Casino? I am not sure what point you are making. Neither hopefully.
I think a little understanding of others foibles keeps this forum ticking. We all have our peccadillos, some trains, others the DoE or niche politicos from aeons back. Casino's faux care is a way of marginalising and is always used against posters who maybe more vulnerable.*
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
I would like Hamas eradicated, but your premise is flawed.
If innocents are killed as collateral in a surgical attack on Hamas operatives that is an unfortunate but necessary execution of a war. However bombing a random block of flats in the hope that there might be a Hamas terrorist within is not within the oxymoronic notion of the "rules of war".
The utterly unacceptable "shoot first ask questions later" execution of three Israeli hostages by the IDF, and the sniping of Christian Palestinians holed up in a Church is simply wicked. Or, on the last point do you agree with the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem who claimed in an interview with Nick Ferrari there are no Churches and no Christians in Gaza.
Israel has the right to protect itself, but as this war progresses it becomes clearer that this war is to protect Bibi rather than Israel.
The killing of the escaped hostages does have to be viewed in the context of a war in which Hamas has repeatedly launched ambushes, using operatives waving white flags and pretending to surrender as traps.
And also in the context that Israeli jails are now filled to bursting point with hundreds of Hamas operatives who have successfully surrendered in the past few weeks. Clearly the IDF doesn't get everything right - no army does, or can - but the policy you claim clearly does not exist.
The escaped hostages had raised white flags and were speaking Hebrew. The two were killed instantly and the one survivor was shot dead despite orders from officers not to shoot. The IDF are out of control. Maybe understandable in the light of the atrocities of October 7. But please don't excuse such behaviour as acceptable during the fog of war. There is clearly an arbitrary "shoot to kill policy. If there wasn't, those three Israeli lads would still be alive.
Again: how on earth are Hamas operatives surrendering if IDF policy is to shoot them on sight, regardless of white flags etc?
The fact that you think an army operating a "shoot to kill" policy in a warzone is somehow evidence of being "out of control" is very telling, though.
Are you outing another anti semite or does your cryptic 'is very telling' refer to something else. Frankly I find your infantile search for clues of anti semitism in order to shut down debate embarrassing
Nah, he's clearly not an anti-semite. Just another Westerner who has, luckily for him, been totally insulated from the war as a concept all his life and fundamentally doesn't understand it.
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
As I've said previously, I'm very doubtful SCOTUS would uphold it (and am not convinced they'd be wrong to overturn the Colorado decision - although I do see the argument and they put it very well in the decision).
However, I think the implications of upholding the Colorado decision in full would be bigger than you suggest. I think they would necessarily be saying Trump was ineligible to be President under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I don't think there's a meaningful way to say "this is a state rights issue - individual states can decide if Trump is eligible to be President under the US Constitution or not, and act accordingly". He simply can't be eligible to be US President in Missouri but not in Kansas.
There are obviously things they can do short of fully upholding the Colorado decision. An interesting one would be if they said that Colorado was right in saying the 14th amendment covers the office of President, but erred in saying it could apply absent a conviction. Because there could, of course, be a conviction in due course, whether before or even after the election.
If they were to say Colorado is wrong but only because there's no conviction that would set up his trial, when it comes, as deciding whether Trump can stand or (if he's been elected) continue as president. To me that sounds like a burden the trial could not bear.
No it wouldn't, because he's not actually been charged with sedition or treason.
He should have been, of course, but he hasn't.
This is also another reason why I'm dubious about the 14th. If there's insufficient evidence for a jury to convict, or they feel a trial couldn't be fair, then I don't think judges should be deciding the issue themselves.
The 14th amendment doesn't refer to either "sedition" or "treason". Indeed, it refers to no specific offences but instead to having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies [of the United States]".
The Colorado argument is that the 14th amendment could have referred to conviction and/or named specific offences. The fact it didn't means you make a finding of fact on the balance of probabilities - there is absolutely no intention in the text to set a higher bar than that, and indeed the conservative justices in particular always make the point that you shouldn't read that sort of extra thing into the text.
If SCOTUS were to go down the road of saying that a conviction is required, they could in theory leave it at that. But it would leave a huge unanswered question - conviction for what? Because there is no criminal offence specified in the text.
Personally, I think the charges in Georgia and DC are pretty squarely in the ambit - they include, literally, conspiracy to defraud the United States. The Florida ones probably aren't (obstruction and retention of highly sensitive information are very serious matters but there is no suggestion he was using them for purposes other than to wave at people and say "look how important I am"). The other ones definitely aren't.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Hamas have only killed 1,400 including IDF. Israel has killed 20,000.
Can't you count?
If they had the opportunity how many do you think it would be, hint: exactly the number of Jewish people in Israel.
Absolute rubbish. I think if you visited the region you'd be surprised how rational most of the ancient civilisations are in those parts. Reading a lot of stuff on here is just bizarre. I sometimes wonder whether the Israeli PR have just done a great job in painting this picture of an innocent downtrodden nation surrounded by barbarians. A view that couldn't be further from the truth. But then I look at Levy and Regev and think 'No.It can't be'. Two more disingenuous spivs would be difficult to find
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
Good article. What he says about the nonsensical idea that Donald Trump's success is all down to his opponents saying things that offend his base is spot on imo. I see shades of this in the immigration and 'multiculturalism' debate over here. If we don't embrace far right rhetoric and priorities we're going to end up with a far right government (is how it goes). So if that happens it'll be 'our' fault not the fault of those who vote for it. Because they're just automatons or something.
The sane answer is to admit there are issues and deal with them in a non far right manner.
A number of Biden’s policies on the economy are exactly that.
Indeed. It's now for the voters of America to show what they're made of. I have faith in them and in the 'system' over there, that between them they'll prevent Trump2. My Big Short on him is essentially betting that view. If I'm wrong ... no, not going there, I'm not.
How much are you down if Trump wins?
I think you said before you would need about 5-1 to bet on him which suggests you think his chance of winning is about 20%?
That is interesting. If the SC were to uphold the Colorado decision what is the direct legal consequence other than Trump can't be on the ballot in that State?
Several other states might see similar cases being brought, and possibly won, for a start.
Whichever way they decide is going to open a can of worms, but it will be as important as the decision itself to see on what grounds the Court's decision is based.
This article isn't directly on point in legal terms, but describes the politics around the whole thing quite well, IMO.
The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-colorado-decision-heads-trump
As I've said previously, I'm very doubtful SCOTUS would uphold it (and am not convinced they'd be wrong to overturn the Colorado decision - although I do see the argument and they put it very well in the decision).
However, I think the implications of upholding the Colorado decision in full would be bigger than you suggest. I think they would necessarily be saying Trump was ineligible to be President under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I don't think there's a meaningful way to say "this is a state rights issue - individual states can decide if Trump is eligible to be President under the US Constitution or not, and act accordingly". He simply can't be eligible to be US President in Missouri but not in Kansas.
There are obviously things they can do short of fully upholding the Colorado decision. An interesting one would be if they said that Colorado was right in saying the 14th amendment covers the office of President, but erred in saying it could apply absent a conviction. Because there could, of course, be a conviction in due course, whether before or even after the election.
If they were to say Colorado is wrong but only because there's no conviction that would set up his trial, when it comes, as deciding whether Trump can stand or (if he's been elected) continue as president. To me that sounds like a burden the trial could not bear.
No it wouldn't, because he's not actually been charged with sedition or treason.
He should have been, of course, but he hasn't.
This is also another reason why I'm dubious about the 14th. If there's insufficient evidence for a jury to convict, or they feel a trial couldn't be fair, then I don't think judges should be deciding the issue themselves.
Attempts to overturn a legitimate presidential election. That lacks the word 'treason' but perhaps it's in the ballpark. I don't know how literal they need to be. All this is great for afficionados of US constitutional law at least. Fascinating stuff.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Hamas have only killed 1,400 including IDF. Israel has killed 20,000.
Can't you count?
If they had the opportunity how many do you think it would be, hint: exactly the number of Jewish people in Israel.
Absolute rubbish. I think if you visited the region you'd be surprised how rational most of the ancient civilisations are in those parts. Reading a lot of stuff on here is just bizarre. I sometimes wonder whether the Israeli PR have just done a great job in painting this picture of an innocent downtrodden nation surrounded by barbarians. A view that couldn't be further from the truth. But then I look at Levy and Regev and think 'No.It can't be'. Two more disingenuous spivs would be difficult to find
No doubt the half a million killed and six million displaced by the Syrian civil war that's still sort-of ongoing would be the first to agree that it was all very "rational".
Parochial news: my little 9 year old ADHD youngest daughter had her school nativity play today. In a massive leap of faith by the teacher, she had one of the biggest roles. She did admirably. Possibly tge biggest triumph of her life so far. Sometimes just doing ok can be the biggest of triumphs. Star of the show, however, was the fat awkward girl who on the face of it has little going for her apart from a massive appetite, who turns out to be a natural dancer, have an operatic singing voice, and to be a brilliant comic talent on stage. I love it when people surprise me.
And then home to news of a new niece. This month just gets better and better.
Can we all agree, at least, that Netanyahu is a c***?
The sad thing is that before the country filled up with Russians and Americans of the worst sort it could have been a Socialist utopia. The Kibbutz movement was a fantastic concept and just what the emerging country needed. But then Meir Sharon and Neatanyahu came along and the rest is a pretty mixed history. The latest incarnation possibly the worst
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Is there no middle view possible? Many of those 20,000 were innocent. Israel has a right to go after Hamas. Israel does not have a right to use excessive force against civilians, or indeed to continue building settlements on occupied territories or to annex Palestinian territory.
I agree with that. Thousands of innocents have been killed by the IDF. The proportion of civilian deaths I’ve read is 61-66%. By way of comparison, when Mosul was taken in 2017, civilian deaths were 45% of the total. That does suggest that the US and Kurds were more discriminate than the IDF.
Sunil’s view is that if Hamas kills 1,400, the IDF can also kill 1,400, but no more. That’s not how the LOAC work.
It's a classic sign of autism.
To autistic people numbers are very logical.
Here we go again. Autism as a slur, albeit this time with a sugar coated caveat enclosed.
It's a classic sign of psychopathy.
To psychopaths empathy is very difficult.
On that basis, most men show signs of being psychopaths.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Is there no middle view possible? Many of those 20,000 were innocent. Israel has a right to go after Hamas. Israel does not have a right to use excessive force against civilians, or indeed to continue building settlements on occupied territories or to annex Palestinian territory.
I agree with that. Thousands of innocents have been killed by the IDF. The proportion of civilian deaths I’ve read is 61-66%. By way of comparison, when Mosul was taken in 2017, civilian deaths were 45% of the total. That does suggest that the US and Kurds were more discriminate than the IDF.
Sunil’s view is that if Hamas kills 1,400, the IDF can also kill 1,400, but no more. That’s not how the LOAC work.
It's a classic sign of autism.
To autistic people numbers are very logical.
Here we go again. Autism as a slur, albeit this time with a sugar coated caveat enclosed.
It's a classic sign of psychopathy.
To psychopaths empathy is very difficult.
Autistic people or Casino? I am not sure what point you are making. Neither hopefully.
I think a little understanding of others foibles keeps this forum ticking. We all have our peccadillos, some trains, others the DoE or niche politicos from aeons back. Casino's faux care is a way of marginalising and is always used against posters who maybe more vulnerable.*
*See the CHB saga
Actually, no. It's a form of understanding.
There's no point in getting incandescent or exasperated with certain posters who, due to the peccadillos you highlight, struggle to be any other way. So it's a way of allying with them.
We all have our vulnerabilities, myself included, and it would be nice if we didn't goad each other as such accordingly.
On topic (I think): Two questions for Dura Ace, whose header is interesting, though dismaying:
(1) How are the peoples traditionally known as Bushmen and Hottentots treated by the ANC? (If this Wikipedia article is correct, there doesn't seem to be an non-pejorative term for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan )
(2) Do the churches in the Union of South Africa play any significant part in politics there? According to this Wikipedia article, almost 80 percent of the population is Christian in one denomination, or another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa
(In the US, as I am sure most of you know, the Civil Rights movement was a predominately Christian movement, with considerable support from Jews. Black churches are less important than they once were, but still significant, politically.)
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Hamas has fired over twelve thousand rockets at Israeli cities in the past few months.
Having inferior military hardware isn't a virtue. Stop giving them credit for it.
Or do you think if they had better weapons, they wouldn't use them?
Why are you siding with the side who've murdered 20,000 people? Hamas are just the Diet Coke of murder.
Is it your view that every one of those 20,000 is innocent, and that Israel has no right whatsoever to go after Hamas?
Is there no middle view possible? Many of those 20,000 were innocent. Israel has a right to go after Hamas. Israel does not have a right to use excessive force against civilians, or indeed to continue building settlements on occupied territories or to annex Palestinian territory.
I agree with that. Thousands of innocents have been killed by the IDF. The proportion of civilian deaths I’ve read is 61-66%. By way of comparison, when Mosul was taken in 2017, civilian deaths were 45% of the total. That does suggest that the US and Kurds were more discriminate than the IDF.
Sunil’s view is that if Hamas kills 1,400, the IDF can also kill 1,400, but no more. That’s not how the LOAC work.
It's a classic sign of autism.
To autistic people numbers are very logical.
Here we go again. Autism as a slur, albeit this time with a sugar coated caveat enclosed.
It's a classic sign of psychopathy.
To psychopaths empathy is very difficult.
On that basis, most men show signs of being psychopaths.
He functioning sociopathy, amongst both men and women, is slightly more common that I'd expected to see at senior levels in business.
I have to go now, but I think anyone who thinks that there is any "side" who is absolutely in the right here is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Maybe, but I do know that Hamas are absolutely in the wrong and eradicating Hamas is a worthy goal, though probably very high cost in blood.
Israel have murdered THIRTEEN TIMES as many people as Hamas in the last ten weeks.
Israel have murdered very few (though still more than they should have, which is zero).
Hamas set out to murder: to kill Jews - any of them, children, the elderly, women, whatever. That was their objective. That is what murder is.
Israel did not set out to kill Palestinians (other than Hamas fighters, who are a legitimate target in war). That Palestinian civilians have died in the conflict was always going to be an inevitable consequence of urban fighting. That is not murder. (FWIW, I think Israel has been reckless in its actions and has paid insufficient attention to civilian casualties at times. Still a different thing though).
By using the same language for the two, you're creating a legal and moral equivalence - and to cite those numbers in that framing is to legitimise Hamas or delegitimise Israel. Or both.
Think carefully.
I disagree.
The current Israeli leadership have set out to murder. They may not have murdered as many innocent people as Hamas (though they have certainly 'killed' far more innocents than Hamas) but this is not a numbers game. Murder is murder and both Hamas and Netenyahu's cabal should be rotting in jail - or preferably Hell.
Netanyahu and his clique should indeed be in gaol. He's been a cancer in Israeli politics for 30 years.
In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12]
Comments
A number of Biden’s policies on the economy are exactly that.
Wars are ugly, civilians die, shit happens.
Hamas is the government of Gaza. It's not some rogue "militant" (BBC) group operating without the authority of the government of Gaza. It is the government of Gaza. And they decided to attack Israel.
If people don't like war because of the civilian deaths fair enough. I get that. But it is a war. No country, apart I think from Costa Rica, has not waged what they believe has been a just(ifield) war.
There really isn't a way of SCOTUS deciding that although Colorado are correct, Missouri can decide differently if they like, and if Trump is elected he's President. The whole point of SCOTUS is to ensure the US Constitution is interpreted the same in all US states - you literally cannot have a situation where Trump is treated is disqualified from being President in California but not Texas - you don't then have a United States.
Indeed, if you look at the history of the 14th amendment, it was a post-Civil War reconstruction amendment to ensure that disqualification from certain offices would be determined at the federal level. The concern was precisely that Senators and others would be legally recognised by Confederate states but not Union states.
I am four square behind Israel, but not Bibi.
It seems unlikely the current SCOTUS will decide that.
Interesting article on council funding going forward - and one reason why I don’t think the Conservative polling is likely to recover much
He should have been, of course, but he hasn't.
This is also another reason why I'm dubious about the 14th. If there's insufficient evidence for a jury to convict, or they feel a trial couldn't be fair, then I don't think judges should be deciding the issue themselves.
Can we all agree, at least, that Netanyahu is a c***?
Although you've now ruined my post, because it's clear we can't all even agree on that.
*See the CHB saga
The Colorado argument is that the 14th amendment could have referred to conviction and/or named specific offences. The fact it didn't means you make a finding of fact on the balance of probabilities - there is absolutely no intention in the text to set a higher bar than that, and indeed the conservative justices in particular always make the point that you shouldn't read that sort of extra thing into the text.
If SCOTUS were to go down the road of saying that a conviction is required, they could in theory leave it at that. But it would leave a huge unanswered question - conviction for what? Because there is no criminal offence specified in the text.
Personally, I think the charges in Georgia and DC are pretty squarely in the ambit - they include, literally, conspiracy to defraud the United States. The Florida ones probably aren't (obstruction and retention of highly sensitive information are very serious matters but there is no suggestion he was using them for purposes other than to wave at people and say "look how important I am"). The other ones definitely aren't.
I think you said before you would need about 5-1 to bet on him which suggests you think his chance of winning is about 20%?
What has led you to that view?
Many thanks,
DC
NEW THREAD
Star of the show, however, was the fat awkward girl who on the face of it has little going for her apart from a massive appetite, who turns out to be a natural dancer, have an operatic singing voice, and to be a brilliant comic talent on stage. I love it when people surprise me.
And then home to news of a new niece. This month just gets better and better.
There's no point in getting incandescent or exasperated with certain posters who, due to the peccadillos you highlight, struggle to be any other way. So it's a way of allying with them.
We all have our vulnerabilities, myself included, and it would be nice if we didn't goad each other as such accordingly.
(1) How are the peoples traditionally known as Bushmen and Hottentots treated by the ANC? (If this Wikipedia article is correct, there doesn't seem to be an non-pejorative term for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan )
(2) Do the churches in the Union of South Africa play any significant part in politics there? According to this Wikipedia article, almost 80 percent of the population is Christian in one denomination, or another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa
(In the US, as I am sure most of you know, the Civil Rights movement was a predominately Christian movement, with considerable support from Jews. Black churches are less important than they once were, but still significant, politically.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin