Political Randomness

[Pyperkub]

It's hilarious to read that you agree with everything in that article, considering you basically accused Obama of being anti-semitic during his last spat with Netanyahu a while back.

I don't recall saying that. You will have to point me back to it.

He was certainly anti-Israel/anti-zionist but not anti-semitic.

Again, anti-netanyahu is not anti-israel.

[hepcat]

Or anti-Semitic. I'd have to go hunting, but I distinctly recall Rip going off on Obama as not being a friend to the "Jewish state" (his favorite way of calling someone anti-Semitic) for not agreeing with Netanyahu on something.

[Rip]

Or anti-Semitic. I'd have to go hunting, but I distinctly recall Rip going off on Obama as not being a friend to the "Jewish state" (his favorite way of calling someone anti-Semitic) for not agreeing with Netanyahu on something.

Not being a friend to the Jewish state is anti-zionist not anti-semitic.

He is fine with Jews as long as they don't want a Jewish state so I have no reason to refer to him as anti-semitic. I know the difference, apparently you don't.

[Rip]

It's hilarious to read that you agree with everything in that article, considering you basically accused Obama of being anti-semitic during his last spat with Netanyahu a while back.

I don't recall saying that. You will have to point me back to it.

He was certainly anti-Israel/anti-zionist but not anti-semitic.

Again, anti-netanyahu is not anti-israel.

He is their chosen leader so I am afraid it is. You will find even when Netanyahu is gone the agenda of the state of Israel will be largely the same and he will still be opposed to it.

Since we love polls around here.

In a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute in which respondents were asked how they would characterize Obama’s behavior toward Israel, only 22 said it was “friendly” or “very friendly.”

A Jerusalem Post poll found that 65 percent of the Jewish public characterized Obama as “pro-Palestinian” and only 12 percent as “pro-Israeli.”

[Pyperkub]

It's hilarious to read that you agree with everything in that article, considering you basically accused Obama of being anti-semitic during his last spat with Netanyahu a while back.

I don't recall saying that. You will have to point me back to it.

He was certainly anti-Israel/anti-zionist but not anti-semitic.

Again, anti-netanyahu is not anti-israel.

He is their chosen leader so I am afraid it is. You will find even when Netanyahu is gone the agenda of the state of Israel will be largely the same and he will still be opposed to it.

Since we love polls around here.

In a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute in which respondents were asked how they would characterize Obama’s behavior toward Israel, only 22 said it was “friendly” or “very friendly.”

A Jerusalem Post poll found that 65 percent of the Jewish public characterized Obama as “pro-Palestinian” and only 12 percent as “pro-Israeli.”

So basically you were anti-American while obama was president is what toy are telling us?

[Defiant]

I don't know if Trump is an anti-Semite (he's states things that have bordered on anti-Semitism in the past, though), but there's clearly anti-Semites in his administration, given the whole Holocaust Remembrance Day statement issue, mentioned in the Trump thread.

Anecdotally, among the liberal Jewish Democratic pro-Israel community, Obama's lame duck actions in the UN were widely seen as a stab in Israel's back. That doesn't mean they'll be rushing to vote for Republicans, but it does mean there will be very skeptical of Democratic candidates that don't have a strong record on Israel to point to.

[Rip]

It's hilarious to read that you agree with everything in that article, considering you basically accused Obama of being anti-semitic during his last spat with Netanyahu a while back.

I don't recall saying that. You will have to point me back to it.

He was certainly anti-Israel/anti-zionist but not anti-semitic.

Again, anti-netanyahu is not anti-israel.

He is their chosen leader so I am afraid it is. You will find even when Netanyahu is gone the agenda of the state of Israel will be largely the same and he will still be opposed to it.

Since we love polls around here.

In a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute in which respondents were asked how they would characterize Obama’s behavior toward Israel, only 22 said it was “friendly” or “very friendly.”

A Jerusalem Post poll found that 65 percent of the Jewish public characterized Obama as “pro-Palestinian” and only 12 percent as “pro-Israeli.”

So basically you were anti-American while obama was president is what toy are telling us?

No, what I am saying is only the Israeli people can determine who is and who isn't anti-Israeli.

The numbers aren't even close.

[hepcat]

Or anti-Semitic. I'd have to go hunting, but I distinctly recall Rip going off on Obama as not being a friend to the "Jewish state" (his favorite way of calling someone anti-Semitic) for not agreeing with Netanyahu on something.

Not being a friend to the Jewish state is anti-zionist not anti-semitic.

He is fine with Jews as long as they don't want a Jewish state so I have no reason to refer to him as anti-semitic. I know the difference, apparently you don't.

No one can destroy your own defense more than you yourself.

[Defiant]

Not being a friend to the Jewish state is anti-zionist not anti-semitic.

Not being friendly to Israel is the equivalent of not being pro-Israel, it is not the equivalent of being anti-Israel.

He is fine with Jews as long as they don't want a Jewish state so I have no reason to refer to him as anti-semitic. I know the difference, apparently you don't.

If you're opposed to a Jewish national identity, but aren't similarly opposed to national identity by other ethnic or cultural groups (eg, French, Germans, British, etc), I would argue you are anti-Semitic. I don't agree that Obama is opposed to that, though.

[Max Peck]

French election contender Macron is Russian 'fake news' target: party chief

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is a "fake news" target of Russian media and his campaign is facing thousands of cyber attacks, his party chief said on Monday.

Richard Ferrand, secretary-general of Macron's En Marche! (Onwards!) party, said that Russian state-controlled media Russia Today and Sputnik had spread false reports with the aim of swinging public opinion against Macron.

An independent centrist, Macron has surged in campaigning for the French election and opinion polls make him favorite to win election in May.

Ferrand said that Macron, as a staunch pro-European, was a Russian target because he wanted a strong united Europe that had a major role to play in world affairs, including in the face of Moscow.

Sputnik earlier this month ran an interview with a conservative French lawmaker accusing Macron, a former investment banker, of being an agent of "the big American banking system", a report that was in turn picked up by Russia Today.

"Two big media outlets belonging to the Russian state Russia Today and Sputnik spread fake news on a daily basis, and then they are picked up, quoted and influence the democratic (process)," Ferrand said.

Russian newspaper Izvestia has also reported comments from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who said his organization had "interesting information" about Macron, who opinion polls say would easily beat far-right leader Marine Le Pen in a May 7 runoff.

In addition, Ferrand said the Macron campaign was being hit by "hundreds if not thousands" of attacks probing the campaign's computer systems from locations inside Russia.

I'm betting Russia is providing Assange with nothing "interesting" to say about Le Pen, though.

[Isgrimnur]

I find it amusing that Assange has managed to completely expose himself as a Russian stooge.

[TheMix]

I would find it more amusing if everyone understood that. Sadly, there seem to be a large group of people that don't seem to believe or understand that.

Hopefully that will only be true in our country...

[Remus West]

I find it amusing that Assange has managed to completely expose himself as a Russian stooge.

I find it less than amusing that he is still practically hero worshiped by a large portion of the population in spite of that obvious connection.

[Pyperkub]

Or anti-Semitic. I'd have to go hunting, but I distinctly recall Rip going off on Obama as not being a friend to the "Jewish state" (his favorite way of calling someone anti-Semitic) for not agreeing with Netanyahu on something.

Not being a friend to the Jewish state is anti-zionist not anti-semitic.

He is fine with Jews as long as they don't want a Jewish state so I have no reason to refer to him as anti-semitic. I know the difference, apparently you don't.

What a load of horseshit. The issue has been one of the Settlements and their impact on peace in the region. Obama never had a problem with a Jewish state and his administration worked closely with Israel on any number of operations related to preserving and defending Israel, while still pursuing a better peace than Netanyahu.

[Defiant]

while still pursuing a better peace than Netanyahu.

Please, Obama's (and Kerry's) peacemaking efforts were pathetic, and made the situation a lot worse (just look through the relevant thread for numerous examples). When it came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bush (not to mention Clinton), of all people, was a hell of a lot more engaged and effective and not bungling his efforts and had more to show for it.

[malchior]

while still pursuing a better peace than Netanyahu.

Please, Obama's (and Kerry's) peacemaking efforts were pathetic, and made the situation worse (just look through the relevant thread for numerous examples). When it came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bush (not to mention Clinton), of all people, was a hell of a lot more engaged and effective and not bungling his efforts and had more to show for it.

Was it Obama or Netanyahu and the conservative faction in Isreal "at fault" here? My opinion was the hard line the Isrealis took on settlements and the 2-state solution were the root cause of lack of progress here. Obama had no chance to move him off it - so Obama had a choice to accept it or not accept it. I wouldn't say that is being ineffective - that was just the reality of it.

[Defiant]

Was it Obama or Netanyahu and the conservative faction in Isreal "at fault" here? My opinion was the hard line the Isrealis took on settlements and the 2-state solution were the root cause of lack of progress here. Obama had no chance to move him off it - so Obama had a choice to accept it or not accept it. I wouldn't say that is being ineffective - that was just the reality of it.

Your opinion not-withstanding...

I'm not a fan of Netanyahu, he has many faults, but there was less settlement growth under Netanyahu than under the predecessors that Clinton and Bush had to deal with. Indeed, Netanyahu instituted an official ten month settlement freeze and another unofficial year long settlement freeze, which none of his predecessors did. If Clinton and Bush were able to make a lot more progress while there was more settlement growth, it's not the root cause of lack of progress.

In fact, since Netanyahu became prime minister in 2009, there has been less construction activity in the settlements than under any other prime minister since 1995.

link

Of course, pushing for a ten month freeze, and then letting it sit there, not pushing the Palestinians into talks, not engaging in both sides and largely not providing little diplomatic resources or any plans (especially in comparison to his predecessors) such that the Palestinians didn't even bother to come to the table until the very last month of the freeze, and then only to turn around and stop talking.

You don't try to push for some supposed major effort for peace, push one side to make a concession in the name of peace and then not follow through and let the "peace effort" die without any follow through. That's how you get that side more skeptical to making any concessions in the future. The administrations record on the issue has been full of other examples of blundering and arrogance.

As to the root cause, that would be Palestinian re-jec-tion-ism

[Rip]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 33063.html

But things are about to get better.

[Isgrimnur]

There are cities where you're not allowed to do much more than change a lightbulb without a permit, and yet there are people building unauthorized settlements.

[malchior]

As to the root cause, that would be Palestinian re-jec-tion-ism

I reject that premise. I wasn't talking about root cause of the 'conflict' - mostly because there probably isn't one. It is too complicated for that. I'm talking about the root cause of lack of progress during the years Obama/Netanyahu were both in office. They didn't cooperate because of the hard lines drawn - "frozen settlements" or not. Abbas had to cater to hard liners on his side as well because of Netanyahu. And that is not a defense of Abbas. It is more just an observation of the dynamic. In some ways I think that has been Netanyahu's goal. To polarize the opposition in the Palestinian community. Either way, I think that Obama gets too much blame for lack of progress when there wasn't much he could do there.

[Defiant]

I'm talking about the root cause of lack of progress during the years Obama/Netanyahu were both in office.They didn't cooperate because of the hard lines drawn - "frozen settlements" or not.

So now you agree that settlements weren't the ""root" cause"?

And, for the record, administration officials were surprised at just how far Netanyahu was willing to go when there actually was actual negotiations five years later, he was flexible enough to agree to things they thought they could never get him to agree to. So, I disagree with your assessment.

Either way, I think that Obama gets too much blame for lack of progress when there wasn't much he could do there.

He doesn't get nearly enough blame. Well, he and Kerry.

[malchior]

I'm talking about the root cause of lack of progress during the years Obama/Netanyahu were both in office.They didn't cooperate because of the hard lines drawn - "frozen settlements" or not.

So now you agree that settlements weren't the ""root" cause"?

No you are misrepresenting what I said - settlements are definitely a big part of the issue. Isgrimnur hinted at it before. He announced a freeze of settling but has overall turned a very blind eye to all the 'pirate outposts' and illegal settlements that have been springing up and inflaming the situation. His stated policies also were an issue in that they empowered the radical fringe on the other side. I said the hard liners on the Israeli side were the root cause of lack of progress and I stand by that.

And, for the record, administration officials were surprised at just how far Netanyahu was willing to go when there actually was actual negotiations five years later, he was flexible enough to agree to things they thought they could never get him to agree to. So, I disagree with your assessment.

Of course you do - you are biased for him and entirely against them. Where you see flexibility on his part I see posturing. Where I see the Palestinians being intransigent too because of local politics of their own you see wholesale 'rejectionism'. It is asymmetrical and both sides are in the wrong in different ways and are right in different ways. A lot of people worked hard to get them to where we are today which is essentially a stand off of sorts. However I doubt that hard liners are going to get the peace process going as long as they are in charge.

He doesn't get nearly enough blame. Well, he and Kerry.

I'd say I'm inclined to agree to disagree then.

[Defiant]

Of course you do - you are biased for him and entirely against them.

Please, I can't stand Netanyahu, and I voted for Obama. But I recognize that he failed when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He doesn't even get an E for effort.

Where you see flexibility on his part I see posturing.

By late January, the Americans believed that their strategy of patient engagement with Netanyahu was finally paying off. After months of painstaking negotiations over every word in the framework, the prime minister had accepted once-unthinkable language. On refugees, the document would promise monetary compensation to Palestinians displaced in Israel’s War of Independence (and, separately, to Jews who left their homes in the Arab world). It also stated clearly that “the Palestinian refugee problem” would be solved within the new Palestinian state. But, in a groundbreaking departure from Israeli policy and his previous statements, Netanyahu agreed to a mechanism whereby Israel—at its sole discretion—would admit some refugees on a humanitarian basis. The more dramatic Netanyahu concession, however, concerned borders. After decades of railing against any mention of the 1967 lines, Netanyahu accepted that “[t]he new secure and recognized border between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutual agreed swaps.” Said one Israeli official: “If the Israeli public knew back in February that Netanyahu agreed to include this sentence in the framework, it would have created a political earthquake.”

I don't see this as posturing, especially since it hurt his numbers when the details did get released.

[malchior]

Please, I can't stand Netanyahu, and I voted for Obama. But I recognize that he failed when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He doesn't even get an E for effort.

Again biased if not for Netanyahu then for most if not all of the hard line view. I just read that article and it explains that Kerry worked tireless on this - and got fairly far along. All along he was undermined by Netanyahu. Not necessarily all directly but also indirectly by what his election signified and Likud politics. That article literally supports my case.

The Palestinians didn't trust Bibi to deliver his end. Hard liners and associated terrorist cells on the Palestinian side were emboldened to act because of the usual provocations (settlements/tensions in general). Hard liners in Israel undermined the process and Kerry. Bibi also lied about Abbas agreeing to new settlement and the whole thing came crashing down. How the hell is that Obama and Kerry's fault? Seriously I just read that article and it reinforced *every thing I just said*.

[Defiant]

I'm not for a hard line view. I would be more in agreement with Sharon and Olmert and Barack on this issue, but the reality is that Netanyahu was capable of being flexible, far more than the administration's assessment of him.

But please, feel free to label me a hard liner, instead of looking in the mirror.

Kerry's fault was for fucking up the understandings between himself and the other parties.

Yes, there was faults on multiple sides, but Kerry's been one blunder after another, from this, to the ceasefire agreement fuckup that pissed off Israel, Egypt and the Palestinians, the state department fuck up claiming that the status of the temple mount had changed when it didn't which was used to incite violence, halting arms shipment in the middle of the Gaza war, etc. And that's just off the top of my head.

Netanyahu had his own screwups, and Abbas has proven to be a complete rejectionist, but Kerry's got his own special place.

[hepcat]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 33063.html

But things are about to get better.

...or not.

[Rip]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 33063.html

But things are about to get better.

...or not.

Opinion I need to pay them to read, no thanks.

[Defiant]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 33063.html

But things are about to get better.

...or not.

Or maybe he'll be like Bush rather than Obama

No matter what, though, I have faith that Trump will manage to fuck things up.

[hepcat]

You forgot to add popcorn eater or ninja. I love doing that to rip.

[Defiant]

Fixed

[Max Peck]

You know who really has faith that Trump will manage to fuck things up...

[Defiant]

And to go with that, a Ninja Putin

[LordMortis]

Facebook have Law Enforcement Response Team?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/10/ina ... osecution/

When over 230 people were arrested in D.C. during protests against Donald Trump last month, many of those rounded up were not part of the protests. Cops swept up medics, legal observers, and six journalists from Voactiv, RT America and others.

All of their phones were confiscated and retained.

Crazy man, crazy.

[Isgrimnur]

Most major corps have a law enforcement/lawyer compliance department. You don't want your front line reps handling legal compliance aspects that might a) violate your customers' rights or b) expose your corporation to liability for an incorrect response.

More b) than a), but still.

[malchior]

Facebook have Law Enforcement Response Team?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/10/ina ... osecution/

When over 230 people were arrested in D.C. during protests against Donald Trump last month, many of those rounded up were not part of the protests. Cops swept up medics, legal observers, and six journalists from Voactiv, RT America and others.

All of their phones were confiscated and retained.

Crazy man, crazy.

Guess the blanket felony charges using the same charging sheets against all of these people arbitrarily isn't the *story* but merely an odd aside? The arrests and the charges are abuses of power but no one seems to care because some asshole lit a car on fire. That whole episode still leaves me shaking my head. That they are seeking evidence after the charges are filed is going to figure prominently in the inevitable lawsuits that are sure to follow for abuse of due process.

[Paingod]

That they are seeking evidence after the charges are filed is going to figure prominently in the inevitable lawsuits that are sure to follow for abuse of due process.

This seems to be normal process in the US. Arrest first, find a charge later. Lawsuits seem to have no bearing or ability to change behavior. Besides, if they start to run short of cash, they can just invoke a few good civil forfeiture cases without actual criminal charges to replenish the coffers.

[Remus West]

Days like today I wish I taught Government rather than Math. Such fun discussions you could have with the kids.

[Holman]

Days like today I wish I taught Government rather than Math. Such fun discussions you could have with the kids.

A professor where I teach is being hounded by conservative media for making anti-Trump comments. These weren't even in the classroom but in a town-hall event (voluntary and open to all members of the school community) focused on reactions to the election.

Some dipshit secretly recorded the remarks and uploaded them to provoke harassment.

[Remus West]

Days like today I wish I taught Government rather than Math. Such fun discussions you could have with the kids.

A professor where I teach is being hounded by conservative media for making anti-Trump comments. These weren't even in the classroom but in a town-hall event (voluntary and open to all members of the school community) focused on reactions to the election.

Some dipshit secretly recorded the remarks and uploaded them to provoke harassment.

While I'm sure it would become annoying and a probably (given how idiotic folks on both sides can get) scary I'd still have fun with it for a good long time. Also, if you are leading a discussion in a class it is best to keep personal views out as much as possible so that students express (and most importantly support) their own. I think in requiring them to support their ideas the anti-Trump would come to the front anyway.

[Jeff V]

You can lead the kids to come to the conclusion that their parents are entirely to blame for turning Michigan red. That'll bring some excitement to those boring parent-teacher conferences!