Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Water John · 22-04-2021 7:19pm

I think there are 31 judges in the full sitting of the ECG. Can't understand why increasing the number in SCOTUS would negatively affect peoples trust in the institution?

Overheal · 22-04-2021 7:32pm

Water John wrote: »

I think there are 31 judges in the full sitting of the ECG. Can't understand why increasing the number in SCOTUS would negatively affect peoples trust in the institution?

The only thing negatively affecting my trust is how the court has already been packed.

Well that and the packed majority knocking down pillars of law: https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/sotomayor-pens-brutal-dissent-by-repeatedly-citing-kavanaugh-back-at-himself-as-conservative-majority-guts-precedent-in-juvenile-punishment-case/

Stare decisis no longer applies to the majority or it’s rulings when it is inconvenient to their agenda.

TomOnBoard · 22-04-2021 8:40pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Since the last time we discussed the topic, a couple of judges have commented upon the current political environment.

Breyer seems to have laid out the concerns with court-packing pretty clearly.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/in-harvard-speech-breyer-speaks-out-against-court-packing/

Breyer’s opposition to expanding the court rests in his belief that the Supreme Court’s power depends on “the public’s willingness to respect its decisions,” even when it does not agree with those rulings. Breyer cited two factors that, he suggested, “provide cause for concern” about the public’s acceptance of the court’s decisions. First, he noted, there has generally been a “growing public suspicion and distrust of all government institutions.” Second, he continued, there has been what Breyer characterized as a perception – which he blamed on the tendency of the press and politicians to label justices as “liberal” or “conservative” – that decisions are driven by politics, rather than legal principles. Adding seats to the court to address a belief that the court has become overly politicized, Breyer concluded, “can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.

In the video released by Harvard, Breyer appears chipper and energetic. He did not discuss one of the other popular topics among liberals: calls for him to step down from the court, to allow Biden to nominate his successor.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-agree-misinformation-threat/story?id=77078448
As Justice Stephen Breyer did in an impassioned two-hour address last week, Sotomayor sought to directly refute the narrative that the Supreme Court is a partisan institution.

"We all fundamentally respect each other," she said of her peers, which now include a six-member conservative majority. "They're as passionate as I am about upholding all of those things. We disagree about how to get there. But I don't start with impugning their motives. And I think a lot of misinformation today starts that way."

Frankly, its none of Breyer's business how many seats are on the SCOTUS, and none of his business how they are filled. His business is to act as a Justice in matters of law, serving faithfully the seat to which he has been appointed. For him to opine on what is a political matter is him getting too far over his skis. The make-up of the Court is a political matter that is decided by the Congress and Executive Branches. If the Congress passes a new law that says there should be seven or seventeen Justices, and that law is signed by the President, the SCOTUS has absolutely no role other than to clear out the broom closets to make room for the new seats. The political system acted abominably after the death of Justice Alito by playing McConnell games with the filling of that seat. As a result, the previous super-fine balance between Liberal and Conservative thinking has been broken for a generation, and that needs to be fixed.

Manic Moran · 22-04-2021 9:15pm

The makeup of the Army is also a political matter. It's Congress who determines ultimately how big the Army is, what equipment it buys, and so on.

That doesn't mean to say that the senior people in the Army don't have valid opinions on the nature and composition of the Army or that they are not listened to by Congress and the population as a whole. They are the subject matter experts, after all, and Breyer has been on the court for a quarter-century. I would suspect he has more than a passing opinion on how the Court is seen/works in the country.

y0ssar1an22 · 22-04-2021 9:28pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There have been many proposed reforms for the SC. Chief issue is the lack of term limits. No branch of the government ought to have for life appointment. It's antithetical to democracy.

A larger pool of judges from which a panel to hear cases could be selected would be another good option.

i would also introduce that any president can only appoint 2 justices. you would need a stand in at some stage though. let the senate decide that so its not a presidential appointment, and they are stood down when new president is elected.

although with term limits, that may not be necessary.

Overheal · 22-04-2021 9:56pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The makeup of the Army is also a political matter. It's Congress who determines ultimately how big the Army is, what equipment it buys, and so on.

That doesn't mean to say that the senior people in the Army don't have valid opinions on the nature and composition of the Army or that they are not listened to by Congress and the population as a whole. They are the subject matter experts, after all, and Breyer has been on the court for a quarter-century. I would suspect he has more than a passing opinion on how the Court is seen/works in the country.

Indeed, the military has been informing the American public for some years now that we overspend on military hardware beyond our military's needs; Congress keeps fighting to keep projects scattershot around all their districts and special interest groups regardless, and so it goes.

TomOnBoard · 22-04-2021 10:49pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The makeup of the Army is also a political matter. It's Congress who determines ultimately how big the Army is, what equipment it buys, and so on.

That doesn't mean to say that the senior people in the Army don't have valid opinions on the nature and composition of the Army or that they are not listened to by Congress and the population as a whole. They are the subject matter experts, after all, and Breyer has been on the court for a quarter-century. I would suspect he has more than a passing opinion on how the Court is seen/works in the country.

The Army is not the same kettle of fish as the SCOTUS at all. The SCOTUS is one of the three co-equal branches of Governmet and ought not to interfere in matters relating to the other two branches in a public forum, outside of a Congressional hearing should they be invited to opine.

It is entirely appropriate that the Army's senior officers would opine on matters relating to its nature and composition, but that would be done through the Congressional oversight processes as well as chain of command briefings through the Pentagon. I think you would agree that, if a serving 4-Star General were to publicly opine on the rights/wrongs of total withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, without permission from the Pentagon/White House, for example, and that opinion challenged the Administration's policies, s/he would be on the receiving end of some serious incoming fire.

Manic Moran · 22-04-2021 11:42pm

I would indeed so agree.

But if SCOTUS ought not to interfere with the running of the other co-equal branches of government, then surely the reverse is also true. That Congress has the authority to make changes doesn't mean it necessarily should without cause. An inability to perform the functions of the court is a good reason for making such a change. "I don't like what they are doing", however, falls squarely under the perception problem that Breyer is mentioning. It's also worth observing that under the current configuration, SCOTUS has a much better public confidence rating than Congress does, interference in a currently-trusted institution by a currently-not-trusted institution is unlikely to improve the confidence levels in the former.

Itssoeasy · 23-04-2021 11:44pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Frankly, its none of Breyer's business how many seats are on the SCOTUS, and none of his business how they are filled. His business is to act as a Justice in matters of law, serving faithfully the seat to which he has been appointed. For him to opine on what is a political matter is him getting too far over his skis. The make-up of the Court is a political matter that is decided by the Congress and Executive Branches. If the Congress passes a new law that says there should be seven or seventeen Justices, and that law is signed by the President, the SCOTUS has absolutely no role other than to clear out the broom closets to make room for the new seats. The political system acted abominably after the death of Justice Alito by playing McConnell games with the filling of that seat. As a result, the previous super-fine balance between Liberal and Conservative thinking has been broken for a generation, and that needs to be fixed.

Justice Alito is very much still alive. Is it justice Scalia you are thinking of perhaps ?

TomOnBoard · 24-04-2021 1:10am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Justice Alito is very much still alive. Is it justice Scalia you are thinking of perhaps ?

OOPS! Yes, of course, Scalia.. Thanks.

Itssoeasy · 24-04-2021 5:25pm

Biden has recognised the Armenian genocide as a genocide going beyond what his predecessors ever did, which no doubt will mean the US ambassador to turkey will get a strong talking to.

Itssoeasy · 24-04-2021 5:28pm

And apparently opposition to DC statehood is racist according to a democratic politician. I mean racism is a strong thing to claim but it seems like anything that people oppose is racist.

StringerBell · 24-04-2021 5:58pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And apparently opposition to DC statehood is racist according to a democratic politician. I mean racism is a strong thing to claim but it seems like anything that people oppose is racist.

Which politician? Were they the only eejit to say it?

pixelburp · 24-04-2021 6:29pm

The Washington DC thing is fascinating really; it's hard not to see it as a Democrat tactic given they're the ones who'll benefit from 2 extra senators - swinging much needed urban focus on representation IMO - , but it says more about how unappealing the Republicans are to the predominantly black population of DC that the GOP see it as a net loss. Not to mention the apparently alien notion that they even pivot a little to be palatable to a chunk of America's population.

TomOnBoard · 24-04-2021 8:54pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Biden has recognised the Armenian genocide as a genocide going beyond what his predecessors ever did, which no doubt will mean the US ambassador to turkey will get a strong talking to.

This is hugely significant to the Armenian/ Anatolian/Turkish people. Its a great move, and one that the Turkish authoritarian regime will understand as Biden ain't playin' no mo'...

TomOnBoard · 24-04-2021 9:02pm

pixelburp wrote: »

The Washington DC thing is fascinating really; it's hard not to see it as a Democrat tactic given they're the ones who'll benefit from 2 extra senators - swinging much needed urban focus on representation IMO - , but it says more about how unappealing the Republicans are to the predominantly black population of DC that the GOP see it as a net loss. Not to mention the apparently alien notion that they even pivot a little to be palatable to a chunk of America's population.

I see it as more than just a Dem tactic. Its providing the people of DC with real representation in the Senate which is their right. No taxation without representation is a founding principle of the Republic, and it is wrong that these folks are not adequately represented in the Senior legislative body, when a State like Wyoming with 100,000 fewer people has two Senators (both GoP).

Bring it on, I say. AND Puerto Rico is next!

AbusesToilets · 24-04-2021 9:50pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I see it as more than just a Dem tactic. Its providing the people of DC with real representation in the Senate which is their right. No taxation without representation is a founding principle of the Republic, and it is wrong that these folks are not adequately represented in the Senior legislative body, when a State like Wyoming with 100,000 fewer people has two Senators (both GoP).

Bring it on, I say. AND Puerto Rico is next!

I'm not a fan personally. They ought to simply have people be residents of VA, or Maryland. If they want to add states they should look at splitting CA and Texas up.

eire4 · 24-04-2021 10:19pm

pixelburp wrote: »

The Washington DC thing is fascinating really; it's hard not to see it as a Democrat tactic given they're the ones who'll benefit from 2 extra senators - swinging much needed urban focus on representation IMO - , but it says more about how unappealing the Republicans are to the predominantly black population of DC that the GOP see it as a net loss. Not to mention the apparently alien notion that they even pivot a little to be palatable to a chunk of America's population.

I will say this in regards to Washington DC. It is debatably whether it should become a state or not. But what is not debatable is that it should be given full and proper representation in the House. As things stand right now DC only has 1 non voting member. This at the very least should be changed so that DC with its population of 700,000 has the same House voting power as do the other 4 states it is close to in population.

y0ssar1an22 · 24-04-2021 10:40pm

maybe they should compromise.

keep DC but way smaller. then let the remainder become part of the 4 surrounding states. that way the residents get representation, which seems to be the biggest issue here.

everyone's happy then surely?

Itssoeasy · 25-04-2021 12:28am

The place I keep comparing Washington DC to is Canberra in Australia which is the capital but is similar to DC. Are people in Canberra not citizens of NSW ?

Manic Moran · 25-04-2021 3:43am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I see it as more than just a Dem tactic. Its providing the people of DC with real representation in the Senate which is their right. No taxation without representation is a founding principle of the Republic, and it is wrong that these folks are not adequately represented in the Senior legislative body, when a State like Wyoming with 100,000 fewer people has two Senators (both GoP).

Bring it on, I say. AND Puerto Rico is next!

Puerto Rican statehood has a lot more popular support in the US than DC statehood does. In fact, it actually has, by percentage, more support in the US than in Puerto Rico.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

maybe they should compromise.

keep DC but way smaller. then let the remainder become part of the 4 surrounding states. that way the residents get representation, which seems to be the biggest issue here.

everyone's happy then surely?

I'm happy with that as well, it matches with what was done to DC on the South side of the Potomac.

Democrats wouldn't be, however, they wouldn't get two Senate seats out of it. For this reason retrocession has been coldly received by them every time it's been proposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession
In the 21st century, some members of Congress such as Rep. Dan Lungren,[58] have proposed returning most parts of the city to Maryland in order to grant the residents of the District of Columbia voting representation and control over their local affairs. These attempts, mostly supported by Republicans, have failed: H.R. 810 & H.R. 381, both sponsored by Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH); and H.R. 1858, H.R. 1015, H.R. 3732 and H.R. 2681, all sponsored by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The proposals received little support from congressional Democrats.

In fairness, there's also the minor problem that Maryland doesn't want the place back. There's also a third problem, that a few score folks left out would still have an EC vote, courtesy of the 23rd Amendment, which few people seem to be talking about.

Another possibility with precedent is to treat DC residents as another group of residents of federal property: Military personnel. They may be treated as residents of the last place they lived before a federal installation, so, for example, a soldier from Texas who is assigned to Fort Irwin, CA, would still vote in Texas elections, to include federal elections. If they are born and bred DCians with no prior place of residence, treat them as MD folks, as that’s where the land came from.

For all the argument about "founders' intent", "voting representation" or "equivalence with small states", it comes down to two fairly reliable Democrat senate seats. And that's the most important thing most anyone in Congress is concerned about right now.

Which politician? Were they the only eejit to say it?

Yes, but not the only eejit talking that day. He was responding to two Republicans who went rather off the rails with stupid statements. They weren't racist comments, just incredibly idiotic.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The place I keep comparing Washington DC to is Canberra in Australia which is the capital but is similar to DC. Are people in Canberra not citizens of NSW ?

No. The Australian Capitol Territory was carved out of NSW, and until 1988 was administered directly by the government, much as DC is today.

After 1988, was given self-governence and thus is somewhat half-way between what it was and a state. It has its own legislature, but doesn't have the same level of authority and self-governance as the legislatures of the States do such as NSW. Also they have less representation in the federal government. Each State has 12 senators. ACT, being a large Territory, has 2. (Not all territories have any at all)

I don't know enough about Austrlian politics to say whether ACT's three representatives out of the 151 or so are a proportionate number compared to States, though the three they have is in excess of the minimum authorised for a territory (1), but lower than the minimum possible for a State (5)

The only thing negatively affecting my trust is how the court has already been packed.

Well that and the packed majority knocking down pillars of law: https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cour...nishment-case/

Stare decisis no longer applies to the majority or it’s rulings when it is inconvenient to their agenda.

There are at least three schools of thought on that one.
One is as you say, and seems to be more or less in line with the dissent.
One is as the majority says, which it is to be noted was the conclusion of the State appeals court which certainly cannot override US Supreme Court precedent. It's how they read it as well.
The third is the position of Thomas, that the two precedent cases, Montgomery and Miller, were fundamentally incompatible, and one of them had to be reversed, and lambasts the majority for going to silly lengths in the attempt to not reverse itself. In effect, this position, cited by Sotomayor in the dissent, then turns into a difference of opinion as to which of the two prior cases were more important/correct and which should be rejected. However, in that case, the complaint isn't that stare decisis wasn't applying, it was that it was applied when it shouldn't have been.

Manic Moran · 28-04-2021 3:59am

Since we don't have an elections 2022 thread yet, I don't think...

Census results are out. The following States will lose a congressional seat (and one Electoral college vote):
Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, West Virginia

The following states will gain a congressional seat (and one Electoral college vote):
Montana, Oregon, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida.

The following state will gain two congressional seats (and two Electoral College votes):
Texas

Districts will be redrawn in time for the 2022 House elections.
The States with the largest percentage population growth from 2010, in decreasing order, Utah, Idaho, Texas, North Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, DC.

In terms of raw numbers, the largest was Texas, (4mil), then Florida (2.7mil), California (2.1mil), Georgia (1.1mil). No other State had a population growth from 2010's numbers in excess of 1mil, though Washington came close at 0.98mil.

Brussels Sprout · 15-05-2021 5:10pm

I have been very impressed with Biden so far. He has hit the ground running and not wasted any time trying to get bi-partisan support for his bills.

His response to what's happening in the middle east right now has been very disappointing though:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1392673451933011969

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastMnt/status/1393595790350815234

Brussels Sprout · 15-05-2021 5:47pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say Americans completely given up on the basket case that is Middle East and to be honest I don’t blame em. The disconnection that started with Obama and continued with Trump is probably the only thing both parties got right and can both agree on.

Who should be making noises and step up are us here in European states after all that’s where any refugees would endup

Except that they haven't. Israel and the IDF can act with impunity only because they have the USA squarely in their corner.

The USA will block anything the U.N. tries to do or say with their veto power.
The USA supplies Israel with a lot of their military hardware.
The USA currently gives Israel foreign aid of $3.8B a year.

TomOnBoard · 15-05-2021 11:01pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say Americans completely given up on the basket case that is Middle East and to be honest I don’t blame em. The disconnection that started with Obama and continued with Trump is probably the only thing both parties got right and can both agree on.

Who should be making noises and step up are us here in European states after all that’s where any refugees would endup

The pathetic meddling by Jared Kushner and his cronies in Middle East politics that basically shut out the Palestinians from the ongoing Peace Process, together with its decisions around moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem have all emboldened heightened Israeli aggression towards Palestinians. These actions, as part of the incestuous relationship between Trump and Nethanyahu wrecked the fine balance that many people were trying to maintain there. Israeli plans for further West Bank annexations were given succour by the Kushner gang.

It is also clear that Israel is using Covid to passively effect a virus-based Holocaust against Palestinians by witholding Covid vaccines and treatments from them while loading up on vaccinations inside Israel. Medecins Sans Frontieres reported in February that you were 60 times more likely to get a vaccine in Israel than you were in West Bank or Gaza. Outrageous genocide by gross vaccine supply manipulation!

listermint · 16-05-2021 8:28am

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say Americans completely given up on the basket case that is Middle East and to be honest I don’t blame em. The disconnection that started with Obama and continued with Trump is probably the only thing both parties got right and can both agree on.

Who should be making noises and step up are us here in European states after all that’s where any refugees would endup

Handing over nearly 4 billion in defence money isn't disconnecting

Overheal · 16-05-2021 7:02pm

listermint wrote: »

Handing over nearly 4 billion in defence money isn't disconnecting

Israel is using its defense technology to inflict its own overwhelming violence without proportionate response.

2,900 rockets or something along those lines reported from Gaza, but nowhere near the destruction of what Israel has unleashed, with fewer bombs, precision guided.

Imagine an Alien race came along and gave impenetrable forceshields to the United States during the height of the cold war; the US would have carried out a first strike.

That's the same mindset we see from Israel. They're counting every neutralized nailbomb rocket thrown at their dome as 1 laser guided bunker buster bomb they get to launch at Gaza.

AbusesToilets · 16-05-2021 7:07pm

listermint wrote: »

Handing over nearly 4 billion in defence money isn't disconnecting

They give that money to Israel to buy American equipment. Effectively paying themselves

TomOnBoard · 17-05-2021 12:32am

Overheal wrote: »

Israel is using its defense technology to inflict its own overwhelming violence without proportionate response.

2,900 rockets or something along those lines reported from Gaza, but nowhere near the destruction of what Israel has unleashed, with fewer bombs, precision guided.

Imagine an Alien race came along and gave impenetrable forceshields to the United States during the height of the cold war; the US would have carried out a first strike.

That's the same mindset we see from Israel. They're counting every neutralized nailbomb rocket thrown at their dome as 1 laser guided bunker buster bomb they get to launch at Gaza.

This ^^^

This is a battle of David v Goliath proportions, and this time David is in Gaza. Iron Dome takes out 90% of the improvised rockets that make it out of Gaza, so the number impacting Israel is in the low hundreds.

That said, I have absolutely no time for HAMAS's offensive rocket campaign which is designed as a constant barrage of terrorism against Israel. It's wrong! However, Israel has acted appalingly in its treatment of Palestinians and itself foments the environment in which HAMAS can reign to the detriment of more peace- loving Palestinian leadership.

Biden's administration NEEDS to clearly call out Israeli bully-boy tactics, while at the same time, investing in education, housing, healthcare and other vital elements of social fabric in West Bank and Gaza along with others, including EU. In the past few days, Blinken has focused solely on calling out the Israeli attack on the building hosting the AP and Al Jazeera, and he NEEDS to do MUCH more. I acknowledge its sensitive, vis a vis US Jewry, but a much clearer seperation of US policy from that which pertained in the previous administration is needed.

zom · 17-05-2021 9:56am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

This is hugely significant to the Armenian/ Anatolian/Turkish people. Its a great move, and one that the Turkish authoritarian regime will understand as Biden ain't playin' no mo'...

Sure.. sure..

As long as Turkey is messing with Russia businesses (Armenia) they are free to do whatever they want there (like Israel). All media blabbind is just to ease simple-mind people who cant understand wider global politics.

Brussels Sprout · 17-05-2021 10:58am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They give that money to Israel to buy American equipment. Effectively paying themselves

and giving the Israeli free military hardware which is being used to kill Palestinians.

Tyrone212 · 17-05-2021 11:37pm

NYT- President Biden expressed support for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas on Monday in a call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, but fell short of demanding an immediate end to the violence.

Pathetic Joe. Hang your head in shame.

StringerBell · 18-05-2021 8:01am

Sad isn't it, but it's what you have seen with every US president going back as far as I can remember anyway.

They are beholden to Israel, for a variety of reasons and it is shameful.

pixelburp · 18-05-2021 9:21am

I don't think you can hang this over Biden's head too much: as Stringer observes, every modern US president has kept Israel at arms reach, or just looked the other way. We can't suddenly expect Biden to behave in a transformative fashion when his entire ticket was effectively a return to normalcy in regards to a sitting President's behaviour and policies.

It's disappointing for sure, and half the problem going on is America's continued withholding of its diplomatic stick, but we can't be surprised either.

18-05-2021 12:22pm

"Israel thanks US for blocking UN statement calling for immediate ceasefire in Gaza"

Not a good look, but what does the US care.

BonnieSituation · 18-05-2021 3:46pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let’s be realistic here,

A small band of crazies started this mess by attacking and killing people using terror tactics of launching thousands of missiles each one with potential to kill more people than died here in Omagh bombing (whether such an attack is justified or not is a whole thread in itself)

Israel retaliated in an overwhelming manner yet again (once again whether collective punishment is justified or not is a whole thread on its own too)

Whole world sighs and shakes head about the Middle East returning to its usual state of misery

No American president CAN or would condemn what Israel did as they were attacked first (hell just look at reaction in us to Pearl harbour and 9/11), Biden probably wisely doesn’t want to get involved in this snakepit as he is already neck deep in the ****e the American Taliban are slinging at him day in and day out.

Wait. Hamas started this?

Are you sure?

Brian? · 18-05-2021 3:49pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let’s be realistic here,

A small band of crazies started this mess by attacking and killing people using terror tactics of launching thousands of missiles each one with potential to kill more people than died here in Omagh bombing (whether such an attack is justified or not is a whole thread in itself)

Israel retaliated in an overwhelming manner yet again (once again whether collective punishment is justified or not is a whole thread on its own too)

Whole world sighs and shakes head about the Middle East returning to its usual state of misery

No American president CAN or would condemn what Israel did as they were attacked first (hell just look at reaction in us to Pearl harbour and 9/11), Biden probably wisely doesn’t want to get involved in this snakepit as he is already neck deep in the ****e the American Taliban are slinging at him day in and day out.

Actually that's not how it started.

This round started with the Isralies firing tear gas into a crowd celebrating the end of Ramadan at a mosque.

Which was in response to something, which was a response to something else and so on back to 53AD.

TomOnBoard · 18-05-2021 4:04pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let’s be realistic here,

A small band of crazies started this mess by attacking and killing people using terror tactics of launching thousands of missiles each one with potential to kill more people than died here in Omagh bombing (whether such an attack is justified or not is a whole thread in itself)

Israel retaliated in an overwhelming manner yet again (once again whether collective punishment is justified or not is a whole thread on its own too)

Whole world sighs and shakes head about the Middle East returning to its usual state of misery

No American president CAN or would condemn what Israel did as they were attacked first (hell just look at reaction in us to Pearl harbour and 9/11), Biden probably wisely doesn’t want to get involved in this snakepit as he is already neck deep in the ****e the American Taliban are slinging at him day in and day out.

Sorry, CHBS, but I don't see it that way at all.. I reckon you're being selective in deciding the point at which this 'started'. You will recall that Israel has been evicting Palestinians from Sheik Jarrah for months in an ongoing effort to seize the entirety of Jerusalem. You will recall that Israeli IDF / Police forces stormed the Islamic Holy Site at Al Aqsa, a massive affront to believers, just as Ramadan was ending and arrested scores. All this, and so so much more bullying and thuggery precipitated the first set of rockets this time around, the **** hit the fan from there.. So, no.. I don't doubt that a small bunch of crazies are involved in Hamas.. However a state-sponsored bunch of crazies, masquerading as 'statesmen' are waging genocide against an entire people.

Brussels Sprout · 18-05-2021 5:59pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Those thousands of rockets spontaneously appeared out of the blue?

As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

Tyrone212 · 18-05-2021 11:58pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't think you can hang this over Biden's head too much: as Stringer observes, every modern US president has kept Israel at arms reach, or just looked the other way. We can't suddenly expect Biden to behave in a transformative fashion when his entire ticket was effectively a return to normalcy in regards to a sitting President's behaviour and policies.

It's disappointing for sure, and half the problem going on is America's continued withholding of its diplomatic stick, but we can't be surprised either.

I think that's a pretty pathetic and a weak excuse. If he was a man of merit and morals he would do more. They give Israel billions in military aid every year. He can do a lot lot more. Giving Israel free reign to do as they please. He's not even being neutral so he can't take the position as an honest broker in future peace talks. Trump was more bias but Biden has been shamefully weak. I would expect this of Trump.

TomOnBoard · 19-05-2021 12:24am

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

That part of world had people bashing each other going back to Stone Age hell just read the olde bible. I don’t blame any president for not wanting to get dragged into that quagmire, last time US got involved in Middle East it all somehow went to ****e faster.

I'd be entirely ad idem with you if it was some kind of an independent quagmire waaay out there in the Middle East... But, it's not! Israel and the US have been locked in an incestuous shark/pilot fish relationship for DECADES! And at this stage, its almost impossible to know who's the pilot and who's the shark! The IDF is HUGELY supported by US arms and other support, and EVERY Smart Bomb that is dropped on a Palestinian building is a descendent of overt US arms delivered to Israel.

So, this is 2021! The US simply CANNOT portray the problem as "THAT quagmire".. From a US point of view, the problem is "OUR quagmire".

So, whether he likes it or not, Biden must deal with it!

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If anything we should be happy we don’t have a Trump there he probably would have poured oil on whole situation instead of calling for calm

Well, today's instability is a direct result of Trump's placing of US Foreign Policy in Respect of the Middle East in the grubby paws of SlumLord Billionaire Kushner and his gang! So, effectively, the oil Trump poured over the past 4 years has only now been set alight!

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Like I said Biden has his own homegrown extremists to worry about, we are only a few months since the American Taliban tried to stage an insurrection in the capitol. What he should do is use carrots and sticks to get both sides calm down and send one of his state department people or someone qualified to try get everyone to a table to try reach something of a deal like was done here in Ireland

I'll buy that!

But Israel says NO! And, so far, Biden seems to be accepting that!

For the sake of the future of Israel/Palestine, Biden must not be seen to defer to Netenyahu! Equally, he must deal with HAMAS! There's the challenge!

TomOnBoard · 19-05-2021 12:31am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

Great analysis, with which I can fully agree..

Basically, two evil entities, living in an environment of mutually assured destruction, have decided to partner up for a tango that will take everyone else's eyes out, and they know it, but don't care... So long as the eyes taken out leave them alone with the power to see.

TomOnBoard · 19-05-2021 12:36am

Tyrone212 wrote: »

I think that's a pretty pathetic and a weak excuse. If he was a man of merit and morals he would do more. They give Israel billions in military aid every year. He can do a lot lot more. Giving Israel free reign to do as they please. He's not even being neutral so he can't take the position as an honest broker in future peace talks. Trump was more bias but Biden has been shamefully weak. I would expect this of Trump.

There's a lot of truth in this, IMO!

He simply HAS to do an "I Have A Dream" in respect of Israel/Palestine!

C'mon Man!!!

BonnieSituation · 19-05-2021 1:58am

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Those thousands of rockets spontaneously appeared out of the blue?

You don’t see the hypocrisy in complaining about Israel overreacting to a thousand rockets coming their way, which according to previous poster is itself an over reaction to tear gas attack

Once again politically best we can hope for is for a president to tell both sides to cut out this escalating spiral of stupidity.

Ah come on.

Have you ever cornered a dog?

Now, have you ever cornered a dog for 73 years and periodically hit it a few smacks?

Hamas are an absolute shower, but let's not go around pretending they sprang up out of no where.

---

The parallels when people start talking about the IRA as if they weren't the product of the society that existed...

---

Let's go back to the tear gas attack... Do you reckon it was required? Was there a better way?

---

Let's bring it back home; remember earlier this week after the furore of Ballymurphy was still fresh we had the pronouncements from Frosty saying the NIP had to go and that the EU had til July 12th to come up with something?

You see, these are small things that while in the grand scheme don't seem that big a deal, but they're engineered to escalate. I mean, They could have said July 25th or August 9th etc. But no, July 12th.

Exactly the same way that Bibi decided that he's screwed without his immunity if the coalition falls so I'll f*ck sh*t up on Eid and that will definitely get Hamas twitching.

BonnieSituation · 19-05-2021 1:59am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

This is bang on.

StringerBell · 19-05-2021 9:12am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

Brilliant post

eire4 · 19-05-2021 4:11pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah come on.

Have you ever cornered a dog?

Now, have you ever cornered a dog for 73 years and periodically hit it a few smacks?

Hamas are an absolute shower, but let's not go around pretending they sprang up out of no where.

---

The parallels when people start talking about the IRA as if they weren't the product of the society that existed...

---

Let's go back to the tear gas attack... Do you reckon it was required? Was there a better way?

---

Let's bring it back home; remember earlier this week after the furore of Ballymurphy was still fresh we had the pronouncements from Frosty saying the NIP had to go and that the EU had til July 12th to come up with something?

You see, these are small things that while in the grand scheme don't seem that big a deal, but they're engineered to escalate. I mean, They could have said July 25th or August 9th etc. But no, July 12th.

Exactly the same way that Bibi decided that he's screwed without his immunity if the coalition falls so I'll f*ck sh*t up on Eid and that will definitely get Hamas twitching.

Nail on the proverbial head there. Totally agree.

Jelle1880 · 20-05-2021 1:45pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

Probably one of the better posts I've read about the recent escalation of the conflict.

AbusesToilets · 14-06-2021 10:57pm

Fairly explosive article series coming from Propublica about tax avoidance by US billionaires. It'll interesting to see how this is picked up national media and Congress. McConnell has predictably come out decrying this violation of privacy.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

Headshot · 22-06-2021 11:23pm

Tonight proves the democrats need to get rid of the filibuster

The GOP blocking the voting rights bill, what an awful party

They know they have to block it other wise they are dead in the water and it's their old fault.

Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Comments