Make the US Politics Thread Great Again


#1122

Remember when parties would try and make the case that they were better rather than just “yeah, but”?

The Dems have a chance with Conyers and Franken to make a statement.


#1123

I remember that. They are called ‘the good ol’ days’.


#1124

On a brighter note imagine the tanty Donald will have if Roy Moore loses. He was reportedly ropeable after Strange lost the primary despite the President’s endorsement, now having flipped to endorse Moore if he is on the losing team again I think a few cheeseburgers will get thrown around. The RNC doing what they have done says it must be mighty close.


#1125

Moore should lose. Would love the public to make a statement that they’ve had enough of this sh*t.


#1126

Well, yes you can. Even when there is a court case, the burden of proof is pretty high and plenty of people who have been found “not guilty” aren’t innocent. Look at OJ Simpson, won the criminal court case with a “beyond reasonable doubt” burden of proof, lost the civil case which had a “on the balance of probabilities” burden of proof.

The justice system, since it is the extension of the power of the government, should absolutely have a high burden to prove before it can punish or incarcerate members of the community.

But that doesn’t automatically mean that society and individual citizens should hold to the same standards. Especially in cases where some of the alleged behaviour either wasn’t illegal (but very questionable) or is beyond the statute of limitations. If you take a look at a case closer to home, Stringer if he was doing what his wife alleged wasn’t doing anything illegal. However, society can still absolutely have a view if his sex with under 18’s makes him suitable to represent us in parliament.


#1127

It can’t force someone to stop. But if the allegations are credible, checked and numerous then someone should consider not running, or his party forcing him out.


#1128

So Kusher was going to bring peace to the middleast, for the dealmaker Trump.

Instead he’ll probably be charged soon, and Trumps going to ■■■■ the peace process by recognising Jerusalem as the capital.

Slow hand clap.


#1129

Trump can always invade Honduras to bring peace there.
But to be fair, Jerusalem was one campaign promise he kept.


#1130

Excuse me for not looking into the detail of the issue/story, but isn’t it Israel’s business to nominate their Capital city?


#1131

Jerusalem is occupied territory. It wasn’t part of the original Israel, but taken during a war. The Palestinians believe it’s their land still.

It’s basically a troll. The hardliners in Israel want this as a big FU to the Palestinians.

Will end in tears.


#1132

US diplomats might get a bit lonely there, most western countries and Middle East opposed. If Australia follows suit I will spit chips.


#1133

Start spitting


#1134

Ah, thanks. I’ve actually been to Israel and Jerusalem, albeit only for a week (for a transport-related conference) and without much detailed knowledge of the encroachment. While some of the territorial boundaries were apparent, J felt very much a part of Israel (of course it did!!).

So just Trump extending his arrogance then, again.


#1135

Part of it was Jordanian Territory, Israel occupied some sector across the Mandelbaum Gate UN administered some. IIRC 6 Day War changed that, Israelis got the Wailing Wall and the Palestinians more gnashing of teeth.
US best friend Turkey ( the one with NATO bases) not pleased


#1136

What peace process? The one no one is really doing anything about? The one that has been ongoing for 22 years with zero action from either side?

Please, there is no peace process and this isn’t going to make the peace process harder than it already is.


#1137

Such a terrible explanation of a very complex issue.

BTW Trump will be actioning a law that already exists, just something every president has waived every 6 months since the law came about in 1995 (and he did when first in office but isn’t now).


#1138

I’m aware it’s way more complex than I jotted down.

But it’s undeniable that it will inflame Palestinians. I’m not pro or anti Isreal, I agree with your other post that it’s been going on so long, who knows the solution. But this action isn’t part of one.


#1139

So, will that contribute to peace? What it might do is bring all those warring Middle East factions a little closer with a common cause. It sure won’t do anything for Israel’s security.


#1140

What. How do you think this will sit with Muslims? You don’t think this will galvanize extremist Islamist?

How can the US claim to be partisan in a peace process between Israel and Palestine when they announce this? How can you reasonably expect Palestine to come to the table and believe any US led peace process is legitimate? Also, how does the naming of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital fit into a two state solution? Without also deeming East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital?


#1141

Whatever you do dont refer to West Jerusalem or East Jurasalem. It irritates Israel.