The problem with Israel is that its leader was a bit too vile. About half of the elected knesset refused to form a coalition government with Netenyahu, resulting in years of failing to form a governing coalition.

Eventually, the path out of the stalemate ended up being forming a coalition with far right members of the knesset that had previously been political pariahs; including appointing a convicted terrorist to the role of minister of national security.

Prior to October 7, this was an extremely tenous political position. The coalition was hanging on by a thread. The attempted judicial coup reform was stopped by massive public backlash. And the politian whose divisiveness was central to the political crises that enabled the far right to join the coalition was in the middle of defending himself in a criminal trial. However, when a crisis like October 7 happens, you are stuck with the leaders you have. And Israeli leadership at the time was possibly the worst in the history of the country for handling it (unless you agree with their manifest destiny version of Zionism, in which case I think they are doing quite well).

What does this have to do with Israel?

Russia is fighting a war against our ally in Ukraine, and has threatened to go nuclear.

China has been saber wrattling about Taiwan for ages and has been growing into a general geopolitical rival for years.

North Korea is ... North Korea. Their foreign policy has been "we can start a nuclear war if we want to for decades".

Notably absent from the list is Iran, which is the non-US alligned country at risk of starting a major war over Isreal, and is a near nuclear power.

When you are looking at someone down the scope of a gun, you do not see a kidnapper, or a mudered. You see a person. That is not a moral judgment. It is a deep instinctual inpulse we have, enhanced by a lifetime of socialization, against killing people. Half of the point of military training is getting people to overcome tharmt base instinct.

As the commanders say, these soldiers have not had adequate training.

We are talking about US politics here, so I'm assuming the focus is what the US has been doing.

Stop funding and supplying arms to Israel.

Like the $20 billion we approved earlier this month (in direct violation of the foreign assistance act)

recognize Palestine as a state

We simply do not do this. Then again we don't recognize Taiwan either.

Back ICJ arrest ruling for Netenyahu

The US has been opposed to this warrent, and there is talk of sanctioning the ICJ over it.

Should anyone ever arrest any Israeli official pursuant to an ICJ ruling, there is standing US law (American Service-Members' Protection Act, otherwise known as the invade the Hague act) authorizing the President to use full military force to secure their release [0]

Urge the UN to sanction Israel

The US is routinely the sole veto on every major UN vote on Israel.

[0] This isn't Israel specific. It us authorized for bassically any ally that is not an ICJ member.

A 40% approval rating is not popular under any circumstances. A wartime government being underwater is damning.

Thr 40k estimate is about direct deaths: people dying from bullets, bombs, and rubble.

In almost every war, more people die from indirect deaths: disease, lack of access to food, lack of clean water, collapse of medical services, etc. Almost all reporting coming out of gaza has indicated that these factors are worse than in most wars, so it is reasonable to expect an even higher ratio of indirect deaths.

I have not listened to his DNC speach, but back in january he introduced a resolution that would have invoked the legal requirement that US assistance not be used to commit human rights violations. It failed 72-11.

Back in April, he spoke in the senate opposing the $8.9 billion offensive military aid to Israel; after having introduced amendments to cut those provisions out. (If you read 1 link from this post make it this one).

As early as October 11, he was calling for the US to force Israeli restraint, and explicitly calling Israel's responce a violation of international law

On October 25, he demanded information on how Israel was going to use the first aid package before it went to a vote in the senate, which was formally sent to Biden November 1.

At this point I stopped going through his press releases, because at this point, he just sounds like a Cassandra.

Let me share a passage from the dissent in a Supreme court case known as Plessy v Furguson. The majority of the court had just ruled that it was OK to force blacks to use seperate railcars from whites. Not only that, but it was OK for for the government to force railway companies to have such a rule. With this backdrop Justice Harlan spoke in dissent, arguing for true equality under the law. In the screed for justice, he wrote:

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the State and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.

Thats right folks. There was a period of us history where even your pro equality arguments were steeped in racism

More to the point. Even if you (for some reason) set asside the hole issue of slavery; there is still the whole Jim Crow era, where we litterally codified rasism into law.

No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.

No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.

SCOTUS can move quickly if they want to. Bush v Gore was decided by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8. SCOTUS held oral arguments on December 11, and issued their ruling on December 12.

That was also a much less anticipated issue. The court had no way of knowing ahead of time that the outcome of the presidential election would depend on their interpratatation of recount law.

In this case, we have known for years that Trump was the presumptive nominee; and that his eligibility was going to be challenged under the 14th amendment. While the precise procedural path that question took to get to them could not have been predicted, there is no way that they have not already given thought to the substance of the 14th amendment challenge. 2 weeks is plenty of time for them to issue a ruling.

I can't see how option 3 happens. Different states have ruled in different ways; and this is a very important mattered. I can't imagine any Supreme Court declining to hear this case; let alone a Supreme Court that is as obsessed with judicial supremecy as this one is.

Mythbustets do not meet the standards of professional science. The point is that not all science needs to be done at standard set by professionals.

In the days after after 10/7, we heard Israeli diplomats talk about how it was their 9/11. On the one hand, I get the comparison and how it explains the shock 10/7 has had on the Israeli phsyce. On the other hand, I get the 9/11 comparison and how it explains the emotional response of launching an impossible military canpaign that will result in a generation defining 20 year quagmire.

Seriously. Any time someone uses a 9/11 comparison to justify Israel's response, the immediate followup should be "how did the American response work out"?

I actually read the 7 page opinion, because normally there is at least some shred of reasonableness in these crazy opinions. But this one ... those 7 pages have nothing.

I'll just leave this little nugget from the end:

The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law. The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena.

The really telling part of all of this is that there was no reason for this to be a thing. The state attorney general chose to fight this specific case. Then chose to send a letter to every hospital saying the injunction did not actually protect them, and chose to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

None of that had to happen. He could have let the extreme cases go through while fighting to remove women's rights on the more "controversial" cases, but instead chose to make a test case out the most extreme interpretation of his extremist ideology.

Despite this, the court seems willfully blind to the fact that the reason for needing an injunction is that the state is acting in demonstorable bad faith.

Side note. Remember when the US SC ruled that this law could not be challenged because the state was not going to be the one enforcing it?

This is a civil case, not a criminal one. His 5th amendment protections are much weaker. If he says that his testimony may support criminal charges, then he is allowed to take the 5th. However, in a civil trial, the fact finder is allowed to draw a negative inference from that.

Having said that, none if this is relevent. He already testified during the State's case, which is the only time he would need to invoke privilege. Since this is the defense case, they get to simply not call him.

Unless one of his co-defendants subpoenaed him, which is also not the case.

The allagation is that Panera did not adequately communicate the contents of the lemonade.

It depends on how the blur is done. A lot of the simple blurring teqniques have publicly available tools for reversing. If you need to hide information by blurring, make sure the blur you are using was designed with that in mind (as opposed to being an artsy feature)

Those services are scams. At least in my state, the court's website includes a boilerplate form to fill out free of charge.

Having said that, even if there is no dispute, if you have sizable co-mingled assets/liabilities (such as a house and mortgage, effectively comingled retirement savings, etc), you should probably still get professional help even if you agree in principle how to divide them.

Admit fault ... in a private meating with the parties offended by the faulty statement. Will he give a national speach walking back the statement he made in a national speach?

This was not a mis speak. This was not a mistake. Biden made a political calculation for how to talk about the conflict. He is trying to appease both sides of the issue by changing his position depending on who he is talking to.