[Malankazooie]

Yeah, the repubs have decided to rule against any request that would make this resemble anything like a normal trial. It will be interesting to observe.

[Cause]

The Chief Justice admonished both sides for name calling and reminded people they were in the ‘greatest deliberative chamber in the world’. The thing is I often think rules about decorum and respect are abused. If you are voting for a cover up shouldn’t you be called on it for instance. If someone lies, they deserve to be called a liar.

Also just something I note about my own parliament as well, the rules require that everyone be called honorable minister etc and half the time you have politicians stand up and end up saying absurd nonsense like the honorable minister has clearly pocketed public funds for his own personal use and is corrupt. Then it’s debated if that is slander. When the important issue is whether he is courteous, which of course he is. People hide behind the rules of decorum like a shield.

Anyway I found it sort of silly, curious about your thoughts


Also I note trump has said he would be happy for Bolton to testify, I wonder if this will hurt him and be used to argue that he should be called or whether nothing matters anymore

This post has been edited by Cause: 22 January 2020 - 05:04 PM

[Garak]

I'm pretty sure they could find Trump standing over a dead body, bloody knife in hand, cocaine all over his face and a signed declaration of all the crimes he ever committed and ending with saying that the world can kiss his ass since anyone other than him is worth less than shit to him ...... and the Republicans will still stand by him and say he's innocent.

Heck I'm pretty sure most presidents would see the impeachment thing as a sign that their political career is done, no matter the end result of a trial. But not Trump, oh no. Prepare to hear him brag endlessly when the Reps decide he did nothing wrong.

This post has been edited by Garak: 22 January 2020 - 05:35 PM

[Macros]

Big sham, the biggest, desperate democrats, so sad, so sad. I'm unimpeachable, the best, like Abe Lincoln, just like honest Abe, how about that?

[King Lear]

Abyss, on 22 January 2020 - 02:43 PM, said:

amphibian, on 22 January 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

It's pretty easy to recognize that Israel has been pursuing a policy of apartheid for decades and that a two state solution needs to happen in addition to the removing of the ultra Orthodox settlers from Palestinian land.

Equally easy to recognize the primary reason for this is a series of Palestinian governments and power-structures run by terrorists who have zero desire or motive to promote anything but a state of war with Israel. ...because if you're going to cast the one stone, throw the other too. South Africa and Israel are not the same. Israel is far from blameless in the mess, but invoking South Africa by way of 'apartheid' is far from accurate.

The two-state solution is a very trite answer that assumes significant chunks of people on both sides can be told their feelings, histories, whatever, are irrelevant. And between the Orthodox settlers who are dead certain they are obeying glowing-God-in-the-sky's commands, and the Palestinians who demand the 'right of return' to a country they never had , want to guess which side will resume sending their kids to blow themselves up in bus stations?

Are you really going to say Palestine and South Africa are nothing alike because terrorism when people to this day still call Mandela a terrorist? Steve Biko was murdered by the state while being held without trial as he was designated a terrorist, along with many others (and having the list of people murdered in detention was illegal).

And there were indeed bombings, not just of infrastructure but of cafes, and golf clubs and and other public places. Go look up Poqo, they murdered civilians. And people said then and are still saying now that black people in South Africa just want to murder whites and drive them from the country.


Framing resistance to Apartheid as terrorism was integral to the state maintaining the system. That resistance was motivated by terrorists was widely regarded as true internationally, including by the US and other states who supported the Apartheid government (not to mention those that claimed not to, but still got richer of that sweet, sweet cheap black labour).


If you want to talk about differences between Israel and South Africa, don't use terrorism as an example.

[Cause]

Israel is not an apartheid state because approx 21 % of its citizens are not Jewish and have full rights and they vote and as a result about 20% of the members of its parliament are also Arab. They share the same hospitals, ride the same buses and live in the same areas. As a South African I can say apartheid was something else.

Now yes it gets more complicated. A large portion of Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and live in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Israel doesn’t want them to become citizens but neither do they want to. Israel for many reasons and primarily security restricts their access to Israel. Currently Israel governs the West Bank as occupied territory and left the Gaza Strip to be governed by the Palestinians. Currently hamas (a terrorist organization) runs the Gaza Strip and are defacto at war with Israel. So yes Israel tries to limit people crossing the the border, tries to limit military build up in Gaza and hamas trains suicide bombers and sends rockets and mortar fire into Israel every few months or so.

My opinion is that what a lot of people don’t seem to realize is it’s not really about Judaism vs Islam, it’s not white vs brown people. It’s mostly a political mess that has been exacerbated over the years by competing sides and interests. This includes everything from the Cold War, to regional powers manipulating the situation for their own gain, to Abdul nassers dreams of pan-Arabism.

Currently the entire situation is deadlocked over the fact that Israel which has controlled west Jerusalem since 1948 and East since 1967 doesn’t want to give it up and considers it the capital city and the Palestinians refuse to negotiate and move forward with becoming a state without it. For the 19 years the Palestinians/Jordanians controller East Jerusalem no Jew was allowed access to the holiest site in Judaism but today though Israel controls it the Temple Mount is actually governed by the Palestinians. So again I want to stress this is nothing close to a holy war between the religions but that is just one example of why Israel is reluctant to give up East Jerusalem to the point that’s it’s a non starter. Seriously this issue alone has deadlocked negotiations since 1967.

To further prove it’s complicated, the Gaza Strip which was shares a border with Egypt and which was formerly under its occupation also maintains a blockade against Gaza. This is because Gaza is also a source of terrorists which attack Egypt.

So I don’t really know how Israel is supposed to allow an open border with a group who are engaged in constant low key warfare with it. Is there a better way? Possibly. But there are definitely worse ways.

I believe we have an entire thread about this topic. It’s incredibly complex.

Quote

Are you really going to say Palestine and South Africa are nothing alike because terrorism when people to this day still call Mandela a terrorist? Steve Biko was murdered by the state while being held without trial as he was designated a terrorist, along with many others (and having the list of people murdered in detention was illegal).

And there were indeed bombings, not just of infrastructure but of cafes, and golf clubs and and other public places. Go look up Poqo, they murdered civilians. And people said then and are still saying now that black people in South Africa just want to murder whites and drive them from the country.


Framing resistance to Apartheid as terrorism was integral to the state maintaining the system. That resistance was motivated by terrorists was widely regarded as true internationally, including by the US and other states who supported the Apartheid government (not to mention those that claimed not to, but still got richer of that sweet, sweet cheap black labour).


If you want to talk about differences between Israel and South Africa, don't use terrorism as an example.

Nelson Mandela is/was a terrorist but its certainly not his legacy, he embraced violence reluctantly and gave it up as soon as he was able. After he won his legacy is of peace and reconciliation. Also interesting to note that after his arrest and trial in 1963 along with most of the ANCs military leadership most terrorist attacks stopped until 1976 and its around this time that the international community most rallied against apartheid.

The sanctions by the USA (1972), UK and most of the western world where one of the primary reasons that forced the apartheid government to the negotiation table. South Africa was forced to leave the commonwealth, trade dried up and they couldn't compete in international sports.

However Nelson Mandela brings up an interesting point. If the situation changed, If Hamas won and they had the power over Israel that Israel currently has over the Gaza Strip what do you think they would do with it. Who in all their leadership do you see ending the violence and negotiation in good faith a true peace?

This post has been edited by Cause: 23 January 2020 - 12:33 AM

[Maark Abbott]

amphibian, on 22 January 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

It's pretty easy to recognize that Israel has been pursuing a policy of apartheid for decades and that a two state solution needs to happen in addition to the removing of the ultra Orthodox settlers from Palestinian land.

Apartheid is a bit kind. Ethnic cleansing is more accurate.

[Obdigore]

Garak, on 22 January 2020 - 05:34 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure they could find Trump standing over a dead body, bloody knife in hand, cocaine all over his face and a signed declaration of all the crimes he ever committed and ending with saying that the world can kiss his ass since anyone other than him is worth less than shit to him ...... and the Republicans will still stand by him and say he's innocent.

Heck I'm pretty sure most presidents would see the impeachment thing as a sign that their political career is done, no matter the end result of a trial. But not Trump, oh no. Prepare to hear him brag endlessly when the Reps decide he did nothing wrong.

Senate Impeachement Rules: No evidence allowed.
Senate Impeachement Verdict: We didn't see any evidence to support these claims.
Trump: I'm the bigliest most perfectist president that's ever presidented. My uncle, nucular, told me wind kills birds in windmills.

[Abyss]

Obdigore, on 23 January 2020 - 01:34 PM, said:

Senate Impeachement Rules: No evidence allowed.
Senate Impeachement Verdict: We didn't see any evidence to support these claims.
Trump: I'm the bigliest most perfectist president that's ever presidented. My uncle, nucular, told me wind kills birds in windmills.

Don't forget....

Trump: They don't have the evidence, we have the evidence, but we're not giving them the evidence, btw the evidence totally exonerates me.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 23 January 2020 - 03:08 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 23 January 2020 - 01:34 PM, said:

Senate Impeachement Rules: No evidence allowed.
Senate Impeachement Verdict: We didn't see any evidence to support these claims.
Trump: I'm the bigliest most perfectist president that's ever presidented. My uncle, nucular, told me wind kills birds in windmills.

Don't forget....

Trump: They don't have the evidence, we have the evidence, but we're not giving them the evidence, btw the evidence totally exonerates me.

The applies to everything in his life too.

My taxes are perfect and above board. You can't see them though.

My grades are the best, I got perfect grades in school. I'm very smart. You can't see my grades though.

Everyone who works around me is the best at their jobs. Just ask them. But I've told them not to answer you though.

My health is the best, I'm in the pinnacle of health. But you can't ask a legitimate doctor about it.

ect.

It's literally the most see though sheet I've ever seen though in my life. No one who isn't a complete moron would buy ANY of that.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 January 2020 - 03:57 PM

[Gorefest]

Not really sure whether it has much to do with buying it or not. I guess many Americans just don't really care. As long as the economy is ticking over nicely and Trump is seen to shout down Bad Guys ™ on occasion, everything is well with the world.

[King Lear]

Cause, on 22 January 2020 - 11:57 PM, said:

Israel is not an apartheid state because approx 21 % of its citizens are not Jewish and have full rights and they vote and as a result about 20% of the members of its parliament are also Arab. They share the same hospitals, ride the same buses and live in the same areas. As a South African I can say apartheid was something else.

Now yes it gets more complicated. A large portion of Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and live in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Israel doesn’t want them to become citizens but neither do they want to. Israel for many reasons and primarily security restricts their access to Israel. Currently Israel governs the West Bank as occupied territory and left the Gaza Strip to be governed by the Palestinians. Currently hamas (a terrorist organization) runs the Gaza Strip and are defacto at war with Israel. So yes Israel tries to limit people crossing the the border, tries to limit military build up in Gaza and hamas trains suicide bombers and sends rockets and mortar fire into Israel every few months or so.

My opinion is that what a lot of people don’t seem to realize is it’s not really about Judaism vs Islam, it’s not white vs brown people. It’s mostly a political mess that has been exacerbated over the years by competing sides and interests. This includes everything from the Cold War, to regional powers manipulating the situation for their own gain, to Abdul nassers dreams of pan-Arabism.

Currently the entire situation is deadlocked over the fact that Israel which has controlled west Jerusalem since 1948 and East since 1967 doesn’t want to give it up and considers it the capital city and the Palestinians refuse to negotiate and move forward with becoming a state without it. For the 19 years the Palestinians/Jordanians controller East Jerusalem no Jew was allowed access to the holiest site in Judaism but today though Israel controls it the Temple Mount is actually governed by the Palestinians. So again I want to stress this is nothing close to a holy war between the religions but that is just one example of why Israel is reluctant to give up East Jerusalem to the point that’s it’s a non starter. Seriously this issue alone has deadlocked negotiations since 1967.

To further prove it’s complicated, the Gaza Strip which was shares a border with Egypt and which was formerly under its occupation also maintains a blockade against Gaza. This is because Gaza is also a source of terrorists which attack Egypt.

So I don’t really know how Israel is supposed to allow an open border with a group who are engaged in constant low key warfare with it. Is there a better way? Possibly. But there are definitely worse ways.

I believe we have an entire thread about this topic. It’s incredibly complex.

Nelson Mandela is/was a terrorist but its certainly not his legacy, he embraced violence reluctantly and gave it up as soon as he was able. After he won his legacy is of peace and reconciliation. Also interesting to note that after his arrest and trial in 1963 along with most of the ANCs military leadership most terrorist attacks stopped until 1976 and its around this time that the international community most rallied against apartheid.

The sanctions by the USA (1972), UK and most of the western world where one of the primary reasons that forced the apartheid government to the negotiation table. South Africa was forced to leave the commonwealth, trade dried up and they couldn't compete in international sports.

However Nelson Mandela brings up an interesting point. If the situation changed, If Hamas won and they had the power over Israel that Israel currently has over the Gaza Strip what do you think they would do with it. Who in all their leadership do you see ending the violence and negotiation in good faith a true peace?

And as a South African I can disagree with you entirely. The use of percentages was in this particular instance was pretty funny though, considering the context.

Mandela's legacy is irrelevant to my point, at the time of his activism and imprisonment he was considered a terrorist by the South African government the world at large, none of whom would claim at the time that his legacy would be one of peace for obvious reasons.

Not really sure why the reasons for the end of apartheid are relevant here but I will point out that divestment and sanctions were largely worked around until the last couple of years of apartheid and had negligible impact on the economy until then. Not to mention institutionalised racism had some interesting limiting effects on the adaptability of the economy as a whole. Not to mention the lessening enthusiasm from supporters such as US after the end of the cold war (it is interesting that they were cast aside as soon the US stopped needing to use them as a buffer against communism though - I wonder what will happen when the US moves on from Muslim states as designated enemy). Basically D&S contributed eventually but were hardly the entire reason the project failed.

I will not be engaging in any discussions regarding 'negotiation in good faith a true peace' with you in this thread or any other because at no point did I mention Hamas or the future of Israel. I was merely pointing out that 'not apartheid because terrorism' is a poor metric to try and claim there's no systemic disenfranchisement and segregation like South Africa's apartheid system happening in Israel/Palestine, and I have no interest in discussing vaguely-related hypotheticals.

[Malankazooie]

This Zoe Lofgren doing her presentation like she's reading a suspenseful children's book to 5 yr. olds. I'm expecting her to hold up her notes to show the senators the pictures before turning the page.

[Cause]

I dont undertsand Trumps argument on entitlments?

The economy is doing the best its ever done, so lets cut them? Wouldnt a good economy, presumably better tax revenue be a good reason to strenghten them?

[Primateus]

Cause, on 23 January 2020 - 11:18 PM, said:

I dont undertsand Trumps argument on entitlments?

The economy is doing the best its ever done, so lets cut them? Wouldnt a good economy, presumably better tax revenue be a good reason to strenghten them?

He's running it like a business, like he's always been saying he would. There's a business practice where, in order to maximize your quarterly bottom line (or equivalent), you lay off employees, cut costs, benefits and other such things in order to squeeze that extra penny into your pocket.

[Malankazooie]

Ha! Listening to impeachment highlights on the TV in the background and the presenter of evidence said "President Trump scheme", but I thought she said "President Tumpsky" and had to do a second-take glance over at the TV because I thought she was trolling Trump and his close connection to Putin and Russia.

[Maark Abbott]

Malankazooie, on 24 January 2020 - 01:03 AM, said:

Ha! Listening to impeachment highlights on the TV in the background and the presenter of evidence said "President Trump scheme", but I thought she said "President Tumpsky" and had to do a second-take glance over at the TV because I thought she was trolling Trump and his close connection to Putin and Russia.

I don't know if this was a BBC subtitler throwing shade but the subs the other day had him saying "I'm bad for this country". And it's the sort of thing I can see him blurting out at random, so I dunno if it's something actually said or not...

[Malankazooie]

McConnell loves himself some dinner.

[Malankazooie]

The Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the blow up he had with the reporter is gaining traction. I heard some coverage on the drive home from work Friday evening and I was floored by how unprofessional a key member of the current administration was with a reporter asking (what seemed to me) appropriate questions, given the recent Iran tensions and the active impeachment trial that has dominated the news cycle. And what I heard was from the interview. The details of what has been released about his closed door meeting with her after is rather upsetting, especially for someone holding one of the most important positions in govt. .... only the best people.

[QuickTidal]

In any other administration, the comments from Bolton's forthcoming book would absolutely call the "ballgame"....but for this timeline/admin you will see derelict GOP senators closing their ears, and loudly shouting about how they don't want witnesses.

https://www.nbcnews....TFY31fE3SOJuujI