Election 2020

[Mickey]

You'll have an aneurysm playing the "if this were any other president" game with Trump, but the USPS story really is at the top of the list.

The USPS story fits squarely into the "nope, can't process that information" part of my brain.

[digster]

It's what makes the "everyone is so hard on Trump" discourse so absurd. In 2012, a President Obama says he's stopping the Post Office from getting funding to stop people from voting to help him win an election? The GOP would have lit the White House on fire by now. It's a 50/50 shot this even makes every front page tomorrow.

[Bi_3]

Hmm, does the state have absolute (or, we could say, sufficient, since only assigning blame at the standard of "absolute" is on its face absurd) control over its military forces, its administration of the border and border checkpoints, the utility grid, ethnically-based employment practices and suffrage, not to mention massively unequal distribution of resources, the illegal settlements it refuses to prosecute, etc. etc.? Boy, great question, you really are a penetrating intelligence.

Sort of like unanimously support?

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

so which goalposts are we going for here, sir?

Same ones as always--the level of political action. I can restate for you if it's confusing: "I condemn the treatment of Palestinians, but I refuse to take even the most anodyne political action against the state responsible for their treatment" is a contradiction in terms. It is, as I implied in my second post here, not a legitimate and coherent political position as long as we also assume that condemning an apartheid state would be expressed as a political action. If, on the other hand, we take it to be a piece of meaningless political theatre, then in a sense it's coherent but only tautologically.

Good lord.

[Rob]

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

Love this post.

It's what makes the "everyone is so hard on Trump" discourse so absurd. In 2012, a President Obama says he's stopping the Post Office from getting funding to stop people from voting to help him win an election? The GOP would have lit the White House on fire by now. It's a 50/50 shot this even makes every front page tomorrow.

It is so depressing that I accidentally stumbled on to this story today. He really could shoot someone on 5th Ave and be fine.

[elliseamos]

Is that Hiss Golden Messenger? Love that guy.

[Bi_3]

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

Love this post.

I know, right? He tries so hard. I am guessing this is the thing he talking about: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... 6/all-info

Not exactly "denouncing the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements", but then again why confuse the jello-brains with reality?

[Mickey]

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

Love this post.

I know, right? He tries so hard. I am guessing this is the thing he talking about: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... 6/all-info

Not exactly "denouncing the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements", but then again why confuse the jello-brains with reality?

You're right--that's exactly what I had in mind, the Rubio bill that Harris eventually signed on to. Hmm, how did Marco Rubio talk about this bill when it was proposed?

Rubio, Cardin Introduce Senate Resolution Condemning Anti-Israel Efforts at United Nations

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) today introduced a Senate resolution objecting to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, as well as all efforts that undermine direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for a secure and peaceful settlement. They are joined in this effort by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dean Heller (R-NV), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Todd Young (R-IN).

“Efforts to delegitimize Israel have been underway a long time at the United Nations and have now sadly been aided by the outgoing administration, but the time has come to turn back the tide and renew America’s commitment to the Jewish state,” said Rubio. “When it comes to the U.S.-Israel alliance, we believe that senators of both parties must stand firmly with Israel and condemn efforts to undermine Israel's legitimacy. This resolution expresses the Senate's rejection of continued anti-Israel efforts at the United Nations, reiterates our commitment to Israel, and urges the incoming administration to work with Congress on this issue.”

From Rubio's press office, by the way--so okay, sure, they didn't "denounce" the UN vote, they only objected to it, condemned it, and rejected it. You really got me there, great work today.

[Rob]

UN resolution or not, we all have eyes (I presume). A Palestinian state becomes less & less possible as Israel asserts itself and annexes their land. If we saw this elsewhere, we'd have a majority of politicians engaged in at least some faux outrage, rather than overwhelming support for it. Unless you view "Israeli security" as being dependent on Palestinians being their subjects, this doesn't make sense in any non-cynical way.

[Bi_3]

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

Love this post.

I know, right? He tries so hard. I am guessing this is the thing he talking about: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... 6/all-info

Not exactly "denouncing the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements", but then again why confuse the jello-brains with reality?

You're right--that's exactly what I had in mind, the Rubio bill that Harris eventually signed on to. Hmm, how did Marco Rubio talk about this bill when it was proposed?

Rubio, Cardin Introduce Senate Resolution Condemning Anti-Israel Efforts at United Nations

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) today introduced a Senate resolution objecting to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, as well as all efforts that undermine direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for a secure and peaceful settlement. They are joined in this effort by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dean Heller (R-NV), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Todd Young (R-IN).

“Efforts to delegitimize Israel have been underway a long time at the United Nations and have now sadly been aided by the outgoing administration, but the time has come to turn back the tide and renew America’s commitment to the Jewish state,” said Rubio. “When it comes to the U.S.-Israel alliance, we believe that senators of both parties must stand firmly with Israel and condemn efforts to undermine Israel's legitimacy. This resolution expresses the Senate's rejection of continued anti-Israel efforts at the United Nations, reiterates our commitment to Israel, and urges the incoming administration to work with Congress on this issue.”

From Rubio's press office, by the way--so okay, sure, they didn't "denounce" the UN vote, they only objected to it, condemned it, and rejected it. You really got me there, great work today.

What they denounced was the UN interfering in the direct negotiations between the two states. It's right there in the bill:

"Calls for such resolution to be repealed or fundamentally altered and allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties. Rejects efforts by outside bodies to impose solutions that set back the cause of peace."

[Mickey]

Interfering by...condemning the settlements which are not only illegal but are in themselves a pretty big interference to negotiations and definitely "set back the cause of peace." C'mon man, just because you're not able to sift between text and context doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. This argument only holds water if you think the "peace process" is contingent on the rest of the world allowing the Israeli state to operate with impunity in the interim. Maybe you do think that! But then you can't really claim to condemn the treatment of the Palestinians at the same time.

[elliseamos]

Interfering by...condemning the settlements which are not only illegal but are in themselves a pretty big interference to negotiations and definitely "set back the cause of peace." C'mon man, just because you're not able to sift between text and context doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. This argument only holds water if you think the "peace process" is contingent on the rest of the world allowing the Israeli state to operate with impunity in the interim. Maybe you do think that! But then you can't really claim to condemn the treatment of the Palestinians at the same time.

But he said he did, Mickey. So accept his cognitive dissonance and admit that he's within his right to contradict himself.

[96583UP]

i am going to go on record and say that trag agrees with Mickey's posts

[Bi_3]

Interfering by...condemning the settlements which are not only illegal but are in themselves a pretty big interference to negotiations and definitely "set back the cause of peace." C'mon man, just because you're not able to sift between text and context doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. This argument only holds water if you think the "peace process" is contingent on the rest of the world allowing the Israeli state to operate with impunity in the interim. Maybe you do think that! But then you can't really claim to condemn the treatment of the Palestinians at the same time.

The boundary lines and settlements are the debate. When the UN interferes, the negotiations become unbalanced and the Palestinian side will no longer feel the need to compromise, killing the actual negotiation part and we end up nowhere... again. Just like Kamala Harris, you are smart enough to realize that

[96583UP]

the GOP Senate has gotten off too easy these last few years, with everyone always piling on Trump as the blame-recipient

i acknowledge there will be a certain percentage of gerrymandering and ad hoc disenfranchisement tactics that sadly are 'always going to happen' - and you gotta try and fight them

but this USPS thing will put millions of American lives at risk

the Legislative branch is supposed to keep the Executive branch in check and they do less than shit at that

GOP Senators are a bunch of groveling little pussies blind from being willfully doused in the face with mouthfuls of Eric & Don Jr's c*m

[dimejinky99]

Sorting machines are being removed from mail centres and mail boxes are being removed from streets

If this was anywhere else the US would invade to ‘protect democracy’.

[96583UP]

looks like that is in Portland

this is what they get for being mean to the badgeless federal strong-arm squad

you hurt their feelings

you don’t get the invite to their birthday party

because they take the malebox away

[Bammer]

This thread is about to get lit

[B]

Sorting machines are being removed from mail centres and mail boxes are being removed from streets

If this was anywhere else the US would invade to ‘protect democracy’.

First of all, there are no "centres" of any kind in the US. Talk English, you foreigner.

Also, those dropboxes have been going away for decades. We don't mail stuff that way anymore.

Also, Trump's a criminal who is going to kill the post office to steal the election.

[McParadigm]

Bunch of new live call polls out today show Biden continuing to sit at around +10, and winning suburban women by over 20 points. I guess they didn’t get the memo (or see the train ad).

[doug rr]