Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "MSNBC" channel.

  1. The only evidence the IDF has shown of such a tunnel system has been bits of the bunker complex beneath al Sharif hospital which the Israelis themselves built many years back when they controlled the area. No evidence has been shown (only claimed) that Hamas connected any of their tunnels to it. Even if they did, it's entirely plausible that the director wouldn't have been aware of it as the entrance was locked and it was essentially a long neglected bomb shelter for the hospital that never really saw much use. One must take anything coming from the IDF or the Israeli government concerning this war with a grain of salt as the justification of their actions requires that certain things exist regardless of whether or not they actually do.
    12
  2. If people want to be mad, then be mad at thw original judge. The testimony in question should not have been allowed.
    10
  3. There are more than you think. Many don't want Trump but Harris won't give them the information they need to feel comfortable voting for her.
    7
  4. It shouldn't. The case is sound regardless of her personal issues.
    7
  5. ​​ @somethingawesome1462 Unless you're implying that hospital staff should have refused treatment of the wounded hostages, I fail to see your point. Said hostages were not brought in through some tunnel system connected to the hospital. They were brought in through ground level entrances. Treating them does not make the hospital staff complicit to their kidnapping in any way. Edit: the same goes for hamas soldiers. Hospitals are supposed to render aid to anyone who needs it, regardless of who they are. I've seen no evidence that any hamas soldiers were brought in via tunnels either. The evidence given for that had them coming in through known entrances.
    6
  6. ​ @frankmarsh1159 The problem is, they did so by invoking the 14th amendment, a federal law, rather than a Colorado state law and did so with a completely invalid argument as well. Individual states cannot invoke the 14th amendment's prohibitions. It's has to be applied equally or not at all. That aside, nowhere in the 14th amendment does it even mention being on the ballot. One cannot hold office or be the elector to office (declared the winner.) That's it. Also, telling people who they can't vote for counts as a way of telling them who to vote for.
    6
  7. The vast majority say it's bs.
    6
  8. The most undemocratic thing I've seen would be Former President Trump's disingenuous/dishonest schemes/attempts to overturn his legitimate 2020 loss to Biden. Colorado's shenanigans would come in a close second though.
    5
  9. You truly are clueless...
    5
  10. She should still sue the state of Texas. They are essentially discriminating against her based on a medical issue.
    4
  11. ​ @fofal Where can I see such evidence where it can be verified that it came from beneath the hospital? I've seen nothing like that in footage journalists were allowed to film themselves during their IDF guided tours and I'm not inclined to simply take the IDFs word for anything these days.
    4
  12. Then you stand against Trump.
    4
  13. He may be a bit over qualified for that...
    4
  14. I am somewhat comforted by what Mussolini's own supporters did to him when he failed them like Trump will fail his. Too bad, he'll be failing us all in the process.
    4
  15. Because all defendants are innocent until proven guilty and deserve proper legal representation regardless of their reputation or behavior.
    3
  16. ​@BugattiFlow If that were the reason, it's odd that the hospital never appears to have expanded into it. Also, the water table around al Sharif hospital is a bit on the shallow side. Building anything useful below that "basement" would be tricky since there would likely be some major flooding/mold issues to contend with.
    3
  17. Luckily, Trump will do so poorly on his promises, that his party will be one and done. Though it may take six or more years to fix the mess once he's gone.
    3
  18. Putting him in jail would be more of a punishment for the COs than it would be for him. Can you imagine the paparazzi nightmare they'd have to go through every day?
    3
  19. It doesn't matter what the Colorado Courts say. Interpreting and invoking sec 3 of the 14th amendment isn't their jurisdiction. It's a federal law and thus must be applied uniformly to all states. Individual states cannot invoke it. Determining whether or not someone meets the requirements to be disqualified falls entirely on the US Congress and SCOTUS. The most likely method will be as grounds to challenge a states electoral college vote when Congress convenes to count them. A successful challenge would then be appealed to SCOTUS to interpret the amendment and determine if that challenge was Constitutionally valid. It's kind of moot anyway since nothing in the 14th amendment prohibits someone from running for office (being on state ballots) to begin with. If disqualified, they cannot hold office or be the elector to the office of President/Vice President (essentially declared the winner of the EC vote by Congress.) They're free to run for office if they wish. If Trump meets all the requirements to be on the ballot in Colorado/Maine (and any other states that may attempt the same stunt) as laid out in their state constitutions and the only reason his name is being removed is due to the 14th amendment, then the removal is not valid. For individual states to remove him from their ballots, they have to have an argument based on their existing state election laws. If they can't find such an argument, then his name will remain on the ballot.
    3
  20. The power of a very poor education system is more to blame.
    3
  21. ​​ @MIKE2HANDS  Also, 20,000 people weren't "dropped" there. They went there over a matter of years because of job opportunities and a decent cost of living. There's a strong Haitian Community there that reaches out to other Haitians to come there. Currently, the local economy enjoys their presence in the workforce and consumer base Edit: The only real problem is simply the numerical population increases effect on things like schools, transportation system and other government related things. Just like with any other population boom.
    3
  22. It will be 9-0 to overturn the Colorado ruling (8-1 if Thomas chooses to go into contrarian mode.)
    3
  23. @larryfranklin  The ruling will be that the Colorado courts didn't have legal standing to even hear the suit in the first place. The 14th amendment is federal not state law and state Supreme Courts only have the power to interpret the laws laid out in their state constitutions. Since nothing in Colorado's election laws allows them to remove Trump from the ballot (he has met all the criteria in said laws) and the only argument being made involves a federal law, the suit should have been handled at the federal level rather than the state. In the end, they will overturn the Colorado ruling. In the opinion, they will likely lay out guidelines on how to go about properly addressing the issue.
    3
  24. They left the definition of that very broad and vague allowing judges to just decide for themselves if it applied. They should have made a tighter interpretation of what is and isn't an official act.
    3
  25. If he meets all the requirements to be on the ballot in a state as laid out in that state's constitution and the only reason his name is being removed is due to that state individually invoking the 14th amendment, then SCOTUS will make the correct ruling that such a removal is not valid. The 14th amendment is a federal law that must be applied uniformly to all states. Thus, it can only be invoked and interpreted at the federal level (ultimately the US Congress/SCOTUS) Individual states have no authority to do so themselves. If a state wishes to keep someone off their ballot, they must use an argument from their own state election laws to do so. Also, the 14th Amendment doesn't even do what the states are invoking it to. Nowhere does it prevent someone from running for office (being on a state's ballot.) If disqualified, one is prohibited from holding office or being the elector to the office of President/VP (declared the winner of the EC vote when counted by Congress.) They are free to run for the office if they wish. The proper use of the 14th amendment is as grounds to challenge a state's EC votes during the count. A successful challenge could then be appealed to SCOTUS for them to interpret the law and determine if that challenge is Constitutionally valid.
    2
  26.  @RC-qf3mp  Violation of her civil rights by discriminating against her based on a medical condition.
    2
  27. Back to your parents' basement kid. The adults are talking.
    2
  28. ​ @dinosaurus4189 They must have been faking it for an awful long time as the percentage of registered Republicans in New Hampshire shows no significant change going back for quite a while.
    2
  29. I'll never fully understand Trump's diehard supporters. He messed up here and should simply apologize. Denying it does him no good. Especially to those who have seen the original campaign ad they put out shortly before the story broke.
    2
  30. It's over. She needs to concede honorably so we can win next time without any drama for them to use to defend their parties failures over the next four years.
    2
  31. Find me one military strategist who would have thought the rear guard (Afghan Army) would fold in two days. Without that, it was a good plan. Unforseen stuff happens in war. Even when pulling out.
    2
  32. ​@jimb3457 Babbitt was a self unalive by cop. She had been clearly warned with the others not to attempt to come through that door or she would be fired upon. She tried to go through the door. The officer was the rear guard for one of the evacuation routes. No one was getting through that door unharmed. She was ex military, she should have had more sense.
    2
  33. Trumpublicans are the RINOs. Most of the real Republicans have already given up on the madness and left.
    2
  34. RIP Navalny
    2
  35. You should see how long it takes a Congressional committee to decide what to order for lunch...
    2
  36. These judges need to think long and hard about what they're doing. If Trump continues to be allowed to avoid accountability for his actions, some looney out there will hold him accountable the hard way. Then the country will really be in a mess.
    2
  37. We'll see what you have to say in four years. Or even two since he promised quick results.
    2
  38. They'll learn when the economy nosedives in the last half of his term and they really can't afford to eat or house themselves. Unfortunately, we'll have to go through that to. How we'll avoid him setting the table for WWIII with his weak appeasement and isolationism, I don't know...
    2
  39. As long as the label is also applied to the Israeli government, IDF, and any adult Israeli citizens who support their actions in this, then yeah, we can call Hamas terrorists.
    2
  40. The whole problem with sec 3 of the 14th amendment is that it doesn't indicate how it's supposed to be handled at all (something that is definitely Congress' job to fix.) For example, it became law many decades before there was even a federal statute addressing insurrection and rebellion. As a consequence one can argue that it's specific use of those two terms was meant to be a judgement call rather than require a conviction first (as there wasn't originally any statute to convict someone under related to those terms.) That pretty much flies in the face of the historical legal tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" but as written, the argument would be sound. Since it's Congress' job to fix the problem, it makes sense that SCOTUS would pawn the responsibility for doing so off on them. One could argue that since SCOTUS is supposed to handle the interpretation of federal laws, then they should handle the issue. However, the law is so vague that any such interpretation on their part would essentially be the same as legislating from the bench. Granted SCOTUS has had a bad habit of doing such legislating over the last few decades or so (especially with 2nd amendment cases), so it is odd that they would suddenly decide to actually do their job properly for a change, but it is what it is. In this particular case, the ruling is correct. The 14th amendment only applies to federal candidates. States are pretty much free to do whatever their state constitution allows when it comes to state/local elections. Interestingly, had Colorado had something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in their own state constitution, then they may have actually been able to keep Trump off their ballot since the problem boiled down to their attempt to interpret and apply federal law at the state level. Something that is obviously not their jurisdiction. The people who filed that suit were well aware of that and chose the wrong jurisdiction on purpose because they knew it wouldn't fly in it's proper venue (federal court rather than state.) What's sad is that 5 of the 9 justices on the Colorado Supreme Court chose to rule based on their own political agenda rather than the law. Something that should cost them their seats...but won't.
    2
  41. She needs to do what he couldn't and honorably concede. Trump will wreck the place again and the Democratic party will come out looking like the only sane choice next time. With no "stolen election" drama etc. to attack.
    2
  42. ​ @k333rl There is no required membership fee... There's the general operations funding (which the US pays ~26% of despite accounting for ~34% of the total population of all NATO countries) and there's the GDP defense spending agreement. While many of the countries failed to hit that goal (mostly due to the economic issues that occurred over the past 10 years,) all have in good faith consistently increased theirs each year. There are many metrics to consider when determining who's pulling their weight. Trump is just looking for disingenuous excuses to continue the sabotage of NATO he began while in office (the chaos caused by such compromising the rapid response ability of NATO enough to make Putin deem an invasion of Ukraine feasible.) Making such statements about long term allies we're going to need as time moves along is idiotic, borders on being treasonous, and is in no way whatsoever in the best interest of the country.
    2
  43. When it comes to this particular argument, it may not apply. The Constitution says an isurrectionist isn't eligible to be President. It doesn't actually say that they can't run for the office. The Constitution also gives the states the vast majority of control over running elections. If a state's election law allows someone to be on the ballot, then they can be on the ballot. Any challenge to their eligibility would be handled when Congress tallies the electoral college votes to determine the President elect. If a state's ec votes were challenged and invalidated by Congress via a 14th amendment argument, it's then that it would become a matter for the court to decide.
    2
  44. Just a reminder. If you see a post with a name (especially "user") with a - and then random letters and numbers, it's a bot and should be ignored. The stuff after the dash is the paycode for whatever poor person that got roped into one of the centers being run by the various BRICS countries to influence our election.
    2
  45. Drink that kool-aid kiddo.
    1
  46. While I agree that a conviction should be needed, the constitutionality of such a requirement is not necessarily that easy to determine. Section 3 of the 14th amendment actually became law before there was a federal statute directly pertaining to insurrection/rebellion. One could use that to make an argument that with no such criminal statute existing at the time, determining whether one met the requirements for disqualification was intended to be a judgement call. In other words, would it make sense for the authors of sec 3 to include a conviction of a non-existing law in order to qualify for disqualification?
    1
  47. Nah. Everyone with any understanding of the Constitution (including the 5 Colorado Supreme Court Justices who made the initial ruling) knew full well that this was staged for political purposes and never even remotely had a chance of surviving SCOTUS.
    1
  48. ​ @Gemmarose9012 You voted fascist...really incompetent fascist at that.
    1
  49. SCOTUS will overturn the CSSC decision. To begin with, the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about being on the ballot. You can't hold office or be the President/VP elect (be declared the winner of an election.) Nothing prevents someone from being on the ballot. Even if it did, the 14th amendment is a federal law, not a state law. It either applies to all states or none. Individual states cannot invoke it.
    1
  50. The only people who are going to watch the silly debate are going to be decided voters so they will have ammo for break room arguments... No one else cares. Independents have made up their minds and the undecided will remain so and thus not bother voting. Both candidates are garbage. A debate won't change that. It will only remind us.
    1