|
gently caress, I edited the spoiler part and got quoted both before and after it. So now it's a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure spoiler, I guess.
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Hillary is unduly influenced by the Israeli lobby, what a venturesome and outre concept
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Seriously, Bibi's attempt to set himself up as the Voice of Jews Everywhere is crass, offensive, and self-serving. Hell, I'd argue it's antisemitic too. It ignores the individual agency of Jewish people to have different or even opposing viewpoints so he can forward the objects of right-wing Israeli politicians.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hillary is unduly influenced by the Israeli lobby, what a venturesome and outre concept That is a substantively different charge than the one you made. (And neither is entirely accurate.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hillary is unduly influenced by the Israeli lobby, what a venturesome and outre concept No your venturesome and outre concept was "The sitting Secretary of State worked to torpedo the Iran at cross purposes to the rest of the administration."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Sure, right, not "Jews", but "shadowy cabal of Jewish elites", that's what you were going for. I'm not agreeing with the whole "Clinton is undermining Obama" bit, but you do realize that AIPAC exists right? Not exactly shadowy, but certainly scummy pushers of foreign interests.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:No your venturesome and outre concept was "The sitting Secretary of State worked to torpedo the Iran at cross purposes to the rest of the administration." BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That is a substantively different charge than the one you made. (And neither is entirely accurate.) 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:No your venturesome and outre concept was "The sitting Secretary of State worked to torpedo the Iran at cross purposes to the rest of the administration." Apparently she could not get enough of phone conversations with Bibi, who by then was proven to be bent on sabotaging the deal at any cost. . What else is meant to be concluded?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Hey, I wasn't the one saying that Clinton attempted to sabotage American foreign policy because of her Israeli masters, that's all SedanChair.  nice meltdownAlso, I hope this primary season never ends: https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/727542489482158080
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
zoux posted:I've only ever heard jury nullification in the context of legalization advocates placed on juries using it as a way to protest the War on Drugs. Is there any scholarship on how often nullification is used by racists for racist means? You've heard of Emmett Till right? The useless sacks of flesh that killed him even admitted to the crime, but shockingly got off because the jury just decided the evidence didn't loving matter. there aren't numbers on the practice since there is no objective standard to measure it with. But I think there's a pretty good argument that's what's happening in the Freddy Gray trial, and what happened in the Trayvon Martin case. White losers are more than willing to look the other way for crimes against minorities, especially if those people are "scary" (i.e. not properly submissive to whites) Lawlessness is never going to exist for the benefit of anyone expect the privileged. I doubt many black pot dealers get their crimes nullified as compared to respectable white pot growers "fighting the system, man". Either both are fine or both are a problem-- if it's the latter remove the law, but don't enforce it any way other than brutally and evenly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:The United States Secretary of State is not going to freeze out Israel when discussing an Iran deal, Jesus Christ. Yeah they should be telljng Israel that it is time to put their nuclear program under the same inspection regime.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm not agreeing with the whole "Clinton is undermining Obama" bit, but you do realize that AIPAC exists right? Not exactly shadowy, but certainly scummy pushers of foreign interests. Sure, but there are a lot of scummy pushers of foreign interests. There's also the fact that Clinton tends to be more aggressive than other diplomats/politicians. So for SedanChair to jump on how it must have been Bibi pulling her strings ("which side her bread is buttered on") sure as hell comes across as "JEWS DID THIS".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:So Jewish people worldwide speak with one voice in your mind? And that's Netanyahu's voice? Wow you really did a number on him by making it seem like he wasn't quoting someone in a joking fashion and instead was rabidly anti-Semitic
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Apparently she could not get enough of phone conversations with Bibi, who by then was proven to be bent on sabotaging the deal at any cost. . What else is meant to be concluded? She was doing her job as Secretary of State. You're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Sure, but there are a lot of scummy pushers of foreign interests. There's also the fact that Clinton tends to be more aggressive than other diplomats/politicians. So for SedanChair to jump on how it must have been Bibi pulling her strings ("which side her bread is buttered on") sure as hell comes across as "JEWS DID THIS". It really doesn't come off as saying anyone is pulling strings. From what I can tell, the argument he's making is that Clinton was giving undue weight to the views of Bibi, whose interests, in SedanChair's opinion, were counterproductive to the overall goals the Obama administration had for the talks.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You've heard of Emmett Till right? The useless sacks of flesh that killed him even admitted to the crime, but shockingly got off because the jury just decided the evidence didn't loving matter. there aren't numbers on the practice since there is no objective standard to measure it with. But I think there's a pretty good argument that's what's happening in the Freddy Gray trial, and what happened in the Trayvon Martin case. White losers are more than willing to look the other way for crimes against minorities, especially if those people are "scary" (i.e. not properly submissive to whites) That wasn't jury nullification.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:It really doesn't come off as saying anyone is pulling strings. From what I can tell, the argument he's making is that Clinton was giving undue weight to the views of Bibi, whose interests, in SedanChair's opinion, were counterproductive to the overall goals the Obama administration had for the talks. Israel has a pretty huge connection to the US and we're a massive reason they exist in the first place. They were the main nation against the Iran deal. Clinton did exactly what she should have done in that position: weighed the issues Netanyahu put forth and act as an appropriate official "concern sponge", and present Israel's viewpoint on the matter in a professional way. The US just brushing off Bibi would have been insanely stupid even though that's what a lot of people would have wanted to have happened. Israel HAD to have a large voice in these talks diplomatically for multiple reasons. Just brushing them off is not how international politics works unless you're operating from a Donald Trump/grade school level Aesop Poprock fucked around with this message at 18:37 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:I read an article someone wrote a free weeks ago that touched on the concept of a lack of empathy that society has now. Her brother had died from a heroin addiction and on the anniversary of his death her mother posted about it and the comments were filled with assholes calling him a junky and that he deserved it and such and how this sort of thing is common where anyone that needs help or has something bad happen is then yelled at through social media. She attributed this partly to the ease of dehumanizing people through the internet and how in person you have to see someone's facial reaction and you then know when you have gone to far in saying something bad. However I think that this video is an example that she isn't entirely correct. The real meat of the issue is that in the last thirty or so years (probably longer) there has been a concerted effort to create a message that anyone that needs help is a failure and deserves whatever bad thing happens to them. one really good rule of thumb to live by is that whenever anyone says "society these days" really stop and consider that, maybe, people have always been assholes
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Israel has a pretty huge connection to the US and we're a massive reason they exist in the first place. They were the main nation against the Iran deal. Clinton did exactly what she should have done in that position: weighed the issues Netanyahu put forth and act as an appropriate official "concern sponge", and present Israel's viewpoint on the matter in a professional way. The US just brushing off Bibi would have been insanely stupid even though that's what a lot of people would have wanted to have happened. Israel HAD to have a large voice in these talks diplomatically for multiple reasons. Just brushing them off is not how international politics works unless you're operating from a Donald Trump/grade school level To be fair I didn't read the article yet. Just felt like there was a strawman situation going on and wanted to try to head it off.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
zoux posted:That wasn't jury nullification. Emmett Till wasn't nullification? You had an all-white jury acquit two Jethros for killing him and admitting to doing it. They were dead to rights and the jury let them off because they disagreed with the law, as in "That black kid shouldn't be allowed to whiistle at a white lady without getting killed". Nullification works both ways, and ends up in a lawless situation where the law isn't anywhere close de facto to what is written down.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Jury nullification is "this thing happened but we don't think it is/should be a crime." Even the Emmett Till jurors didn't have the chutzpah for that, they just turned in a not guilty verdict. Edit: I guess you tried to cover this in your post, but your argument is really an argument against jury trials altogether.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
I thought the Emmett Till case was about double jeopardy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Antti posted:Jury nullification is "this thing happened but we don't think it is/should be a crime." Uh. When juries nullify they just turn in not guilty verdicts. If they stood up and said "I mean he did it but we don't like this law so we won't vote to convict" it's probably a mistrial. Emmett Till was 100% nullification E: I mean lets be clear, the defense attorneys closed with "Every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to set these men free." But sure it wasn't about nullifying a clear crime because of race. Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hillary is unduly influenced by the Israeli lobby, what a venturesome and outre concept Hey, man, this forum is READY FOR HILLARY YAAAASSS. Don't you know?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
yeah i think hung jury is considered to be different from nullification and nullification definitely includes acquittal, from everything i've read
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Hey guys, lets laugh at politicians some more! Like Ted Cruz, who apparently so pissed off at Trump now that his press conferences are now about Trump's slaying 'tang and dealing with VDs. Or how about Hillary, who believes that you shouldn't actually believe the very words she says? She actually feels sorry for you if you do! This election, what a show!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Antti posted:Jury nullification is "this thing happened but we don't think it is/should be a crime." It's also considered nullification if you generally believe something should be a crime (murder should generally be illegal), but that it should not be applied in a specific circumstance or because of something particular about the case of a specific defendant (for example: a white man killing a black man, a wife killing an abusive husband in his sleep, a child killing an abusive parent, etc.) TheQat posted:yeah i think hung jury is considered to be different from nullification and nullification definitely includes acquittal, from everything i've read A hung jury means that the jurors could not reach the required majority on the charges (unanimity required for almost all criminal trials in most states; civil trials have different threshholds depending on the state) and that after deliberation they could not resolve the differences. A hung jury means there has been a mistrial, and the prosecutor can retry the case if they so choose without running into double jeopardy issues.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Or how about Hillary, who believes that you shouldn't actually believe the very words she says? She actually feels sorry for you if you do! I heard that on the radio this morning and groaned audibly to myself at just how duplicitous it seems. HOWEVER, the original town hall question/response DID include a wider-context answer about bringing new industry to coal-mining areas, notably renewable. The feasibility of that is probably low. That said, I fully expect/want coal to go away and the sooner the better, but you can't exactly look an ex-coal miner in the eye and tell him to get hosed along with this whole state while still hoping to be elected POTUS. Boon fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/727523316102107136 Very Nice Meltdown
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
My only kind of meta complaint as some people have alluded to is that Ted Cruz's ideology hasn't really gotten much media coverage, like others have said it's horribleness is hard to understate and the fact that it's apparently going to go unexamined and rejected by the general public is a disappointment. Of course the monkey paw scenario is that we open that Pandora's Box and a majority of Americans like it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:In the year of our lord 2016, Donald John Trump is trying to link Rafael Edward Cruz to the John Fitzgerald Kennedy administration in a way no one has ever thought of.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That is a substantively different charge than the one you made. (And neither is entirely accurate.) Sedanchair.txt Also maybe after Indiana we get to see Ted cry. (I don't know why but I just want to see Ted destroyed.) ALso has there been any movement on getting that general to run third party?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:ALso has there been any movement on getting that general to run third party? He said no.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:He said no. So who else can they make their patsy on the "derail trump" train?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/727523316102107136 Nice meltdown
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So who else can they make their patsy on the "derail trump" train? Clinton? I mean, I think she's got at least okay odds on beating him in the general on her own. What does the GOP establishment gain by disrupting their own candidate if Trump actually gets the nomination? If they're that willing to court negative public attention, he can still be ratfucked at the convention, with the only loss being a bunch of face with the electorate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Hey guys, lets laugh at politicians some more! It turns out Mike Tyson has a time machine and addressed Teddy's comments back in 2002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3kCMJ-3uMM
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Them having it out for Hillary is news to me. http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/new_york_times_shows_clear_bias_for_hillary_clinton_20160315 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/267692-the-new-york-times-bias-and-hillary-clinton http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/27/can-the-new-york-times-salvage-its-clinton-cove/204605 "The New York Times" posted:
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Clinton? I mean, I think she's got at least okay odds on beating him in the general on her own. To ratfuck Trump at the convention, they need to convince a majority of the delegates on the rules committee, and then some large number of delegates during the voting, that the ratfucking is good and should be done. They then get to face the wrath of all of the Trump supporters who had the nomination stolen AND the disdain of moderates who wouldn't want to do something so un-democratic. To run a third party candidate, they need to convince one shmuck to run. People might bitch, but one guy going off on his own to make a principled run for his beliefs is pretty common and wouldn't get nearly the outrage. Edit: Forgot to answer - what do they gain? It's more what they lose. Right now, they're riding two tigers that are fighting - the pearl-clutching 'moderate' GOPers who don't want to admit to themselves that they're the enablers of racists and sexists, and the blue-collar/authoritarians who drat well want someone to finally say all of the racist and sexist things they've been forced to shut up about for too long. For the GOP to keep doing well in elections, it needs to appeal to both, and running a third party moderate while letting Trump have the convention would be the best way for them to say to both sides "See? You're really in charge and we need you". Eschers Basement fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also maybe after Indiana we get to see Ted cry. (I don't know why but I just want to see Ted destroyed.) Reminder: JonathonSpectre posted:I just want to remind everyone of something.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
