Hodad

You like hypotheticals? What if you were honest every now and then? Chauvin wasn't doing what he was trained to do or following protocols. He wasn't even acting according to basic human decency. That's why Floyd is dead and why there were riots and protests in the first place. Medical examiners are pretty good at their job. Several of them independently identified that Floyd's death as a homicide due to his restraint. The problem is that YOU don't believe the MEs because it's inconvenient to your argument. "My opinion remains unchanged," Baker said as his testimony concluded. "It's what I put on the death certificate last June. That's cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression." "That was my top line then," he added. "It would stay my top line now." Under cross-examination, Baker agreed with Nelson's statement that Floyd's heart disease, narrowed arteries and drug use "played a role" in Floyd's death, but he testified that those things did not directly cause him to die. "Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint," Baker said. "His heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint."

This is how you know you've become an extremist. You think a lifelong Republicans are not Republicans. Romney was the a Republican presidential nominee, for farks sake. He was so Republican he was the de-facto leader of the party. Cheney was soundly conservative, in the image of her father. Trump, on the other hand, who isn't conservative in any way, woke up and called himself a Republican one day, and you adore him so much you think that whatever he is at a given moment (might change on a windy day) defines what Republicanism is. Romney and Cheney didn't suddenly become Democrats just because they rightly called out Trump's bad behavior. Their values are the same as they always were. Their policy positions didn't change. It's called having principles. Most prominent Republicans don't actually like Trump. When he ran in 2015 they correctly identified that he was completely unfit for office. The Republican voters disagreed and, once he had the nomination, most of his critics fell in line and started licking his boots. But on serious matters like the egregious abuse of power and the insurrection, a small subset of Republicans still held true to their principles and their oaths of loyalty to country and constitution. You're an buffoon if you think people like Romney, Cheney and Pence are magically transformed into Democrats just because they stood up to Trump.

You've got the whole routine down! Dodge, deny, deflect, dip?

?Like I said. You believe the MEs when it's convenient and then simply dismiss their expert analysis when it doesn't tell you what you wan to hear. You seem to apply that model of "thinking" to just about everything; what's convenient is true, what's inconvenient is not.

Exactly. We after Devon Archer trusted Republicans went on FOX and claimed that he said literally the opposite of what he actually said. Because it's not a crime to lie and they know full well that their credulous sheep will believe absolutely anything without so much as a fact check.

I'm aware that it was likely caused by a rocket misfire. Not sure how that is relevant to the casualty count. And that's a wildly generous interpretation of the suggestion that it's NBD if those kids are killed. A very small percentage of Palestinians are Hamas, but it doesn't much matter how you bucket the dead. By anyone's count, including the IDF, the non-combatant deaths are several times higher than combatants. They are killing civilians at about 3x the rate the US killed in Iraq during the "shock and awe" bombing and invasion. They really do not seem to be bothered about who they kill. It's going to backfire in every way.

And he wasn't shot. And he wasn't pushed off a cliff. And he wasn't drowned. And he wasn't crushed by a steamroller. We could keep doing this process-of-elimination style, or you could take the shortcut and listen to the medical examiners you believe when it's convenient. They identified the cause of death: homicide, cardiopulmonary arrest, asphyxia. There's no mystery here, man. They know how he died, and who did it to him.

Dude, if I'm stupid, you must be mentally disabled. Those are stones you shouldn't be throwing, especially from the glassiest of glass houses.? None of your nonsense here matters. You can baselessly speculate about pressure all you want. The fact remains that they are credible because of a record of credibility. And should be viewed as such until that credibility is broken. That does not "cast doubt" on the hospital incident. Within hours of the explosion they issued what is clearly a rough number at 500. The very next day they updated it to count at 471. Sorry they were 6% off in their initial count in the middle of a war zone. But that's pretty damn close. And if your speculation were correct, they would have revised the number upward. Again, their counts from past conflicts have been reliable once third party evaluators had opportunity to make a count. Wow, you just rationalized and justified the wanton murder of children. Children. Congrats on being a piece of crap.

Except that is a complete and total lie. A shameless lie. Biden took over a dumpster fire and every metric improved. Most of them dramatically. And you know this, because your lies have been called out many times. What has Trump done for you that you're willing to do debase yourself and slither around saying the sky is green if it pleaseth master Trump? Have some dignity.

Sure they did. Maybe on your TV that can see the future? Who knows where you get your kooky ideas. But back here in reality protests in Minneapolis continues into 2021, and some even later. Perhaps because bodycam footage was utterly damning for the officers. It added two minutes to the restraint time. It shows that they continues to restrain him for minutes after saying aloud that he didn't have a pulse. It shows the additional minutes ticking by while without trying to revive him. If people thought it was murder before, the unbelievable indifference and caught on the bodycam footage sealed the deal. They were sitting on a man they knew had no pulse--they knew it--and they kept doing it. They willfully "restrained" a dead man for three more minutes instead of rendering aid. Let that sink into your thick head. And people watched that happen on the bodycam footage that you think had a calming effect. Oy.

Well, fark, I guess I don't need to say anything. You'll make up what I think and have that conversation instead. That's fine. You can come to your senses later. Take a look around the world. Watch Israel's support go from overwhelming to a minority position, as everyone from the Pope to South Africa to our own White House tells them to pump the brakes on the atrocities. They can slaughter tens of thousands of Palestinians and all they will do is earn the hatred those people feel toward them, and lose the support of their allies. Terror begets terror.

Indeed. That's an apt summary for a post that completely misses the point.

It's this a mindbending riddle? Did he stab me with an icicle? I'm going to ask you to think for a minute if there are any other ways to reduce it eliminate the ability to breathe?

The idea that you think this is "evidence" of something is hilarious. I've got a tip for you, dumbass: if someone is complaining that they can't breathe, don't kneel on their neck for 9 minutes or you too will be in prison for murder. Jeebus, put 2 and 2 together.?‍♀️

I'm not sure I follow. There are rules that govern warfare. While there's no referee, the countries that operate outside of the rules, those who are seen to transgress the norms of conflict, do face consequences in the global community. All true. But not really relevant to what is happening today or the actions Israel is taking today. Everybody--including terrorist groups--rationalize the murder of civilians based on past grievances. Everyone knows that the Jewish people have a long history of being mistreated. However, that knowledge doesn't do much to change the feeling when we now see them mistreating another powerless group. Nobody cares if Israel fights Hamas. More power to them. But many thousands of dead non-combatants is a problem. Well, I know that the terrible Hamas attack triggered this round of reprisals. But you can bet the Palestinians do not feel like they "started it." To them, the "start" was long ago. They very much feel like this is an act of defiance in a decades-long state of oppression. And it's a point not without some merit. Does that make Hamas right? Nope. They were wrong. But Palestinians are inarguably in a shitty situation and have been for ages. At any rate, the "who started it" conversation is really beside the point. It doesn't really matter who started it. The historical finger-pointing is not what people are concerned about. The world was horrified when 1,300 Israeli civilians were murdered. The world is increasingly horrified that the response to that is murder thousands of Palestinian non-combatants. It's not even an eye for an eye. It's ten eyes for an eye. It doesn't feel like justice anymore. It feels like a solution. It feels like a pointlessly bloody escalation. Let me reiterate: Israel needs allies. It needs support from the United States, among others. And one of the absolute best ways to undermine and eventually lose that support is by becoming--in a shocking and public way-- the brutal oppressors that the Palestinian's have been telling the world about. If the hegemonic state looks like a villain, today's terrorists start to look like tomorrow's freedom fighters.

Sure. Because that's convenient to believe. But when the same source you believed a minute ago tells you exactly what DID kill Floyd, you dismiss it. There's probably a name for that...

A. The Gaza Health Ministry didn't rape or burn anyone. They aren't soldiers. They are hospital staff and administrators.? B. For the umpteenth time, their figures are given credence because they have been historically credible. And literally no one is in a better position to count the bodies. C. Is there a number of times that I can give that same answer, after which you will stop asking the same question? Sorry, did you have some kind of intelligent point to make?

I suppose building-to-building fighting is much easier once there are no more buildings. Yes, boots on the ground incurs more risk and loss than bombs in the air. But sacrificing thousands of non-combatants to minimize risk to ground forces in an elective (elective vs existential) conflict does come with consequences. It's a calculation. And in my view, Israel has gravely miscalculated. If they persist, they will come out of this looking like bad guys. Looking like war criminals, creeping ever closer to genocide.

Your logic and math are both wrong. There is no implications in my statement whatsoever about the relative value of life for each side. Nor is the any reason to expect that the IDF would suffer greater losses than HAMAS (that's highly unlikely). And, in terms of numbers, 1,300 Jewish civilians were killed, and 10x that many Palestinians. Actually, the Palestinian death toll is in excess of 15K. But let's assume that some of those were actually Hamas fighters instead of families. So if you want to talk about the lives of one semitic group being worth more than another, the imbalance is dramatically in the other direction. I am, in general, a firm supporter of Israel, and have been as long as you've seen my posts. But it doesn't mean I think individual policies or choices are beyond criticism. And in this case, they are really farking up.

Only two? I would have guessed you've known a lot more bulls.

But it's rendered many gunfights irrelevant. Unless their endgame is genocide, Israel's current strategy is going to create a lot more fighters than they kill. By rolling around in the mud of mass civilian casualties, Israel has surrendered the moral high ground. They are very publicly becoming everything Hamas has accused them of being. And after the world has watched Israel bomb thousands of non-combatants, thousands of regular men, women and children just trying to keep their families safe, it will be difficult to reclaim the mantle of a just cause. The next time Hamas 2.0 attacks, a MUCH larger portion of the global community will see Hamas 2.0 not as terrorists, but as freedom fighters against an oppressive apartheid state.

I don't think so. Have you ever seen a football team (or whatever) leading comfortably in a game, and then lose a couple of key players to injury. Extenuating circumstances can quickly turn the tide of a contest. The lesser team can win. I think that's very much what happened in 2016. Extenuating circumstances really added up. The Russian social media campaign, the hack and leak. Comey's October surprise was probably the backbreaker. A comfortable lead became a dead heat and tipped the other way by the smallest of margins. But, to be fair, on paper Trump shouldn't have even been remotely viable. A reality TV star with no political experience, no governing experience, a spotty business record and TONS of character baggage? I don't think that's anyone's idea of a superior candidate. It should never have been close enough to tilt under any circumstance. He was certainly overperforming. It was Hillary's race to lose, and, with the help of some extenuating circumstances, she lost it.

In terms of prosecuting the war on Hamas? I'd suggest that the only way to do so legitimately is to shift more focus toward pursuing Hamas on the ground. They have an elite military and it's much more precise than bombardment. And while I understand that the cost in military lives would be higher, that has to be weighed against fundamental justice and international support. Collateral damage is supposed to mean that accidents happen and sometimes civilians are caught in the crossfire. In this case, even with Israel's 2:1 ratio, they have reversed the meaning of collateral damage. They are mostly killing civilian--and if they are lucky, some Hamas fighters are being killed as collateral damage. It's a famously complex situation and fraught with implications to global politics. I'm probably not equipped to armchair quarterback this. None of us are. But that's my best suggestion. And in the larger sense, I gave my suggestion for re-legitimizing their war in the other thread: "What I actually think they should be do is to take advantage of the moment. End the blockade and the military action as leverage to force a two-state solution on their terms, force an election in new Palestine and give the Palestinian people a voice. Let them decide right now if they want their own state with a chance at real self governance, or whether they want to fight to the bitter end with Hamas as stateless refugees." Right now, Israel is losing this fight in every way that matters. And they're doing it to themselves. In my view, they are being politically outsmarted and outmaneuvered.

I have answered that multiple times. They have earned credibility by being accurate and transparent in past reporting. With a demonstrated record of reliability one should need a positive reason to suddenly mistrust them, no? One shouldn't assume that something has changed without evidence, right? I mean, we're just talking logic. A source that is historically reliable should get the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when no one is currently in an informed position from which to contradict that source. It's true that they don't distinguish or set aside the death toll of actual fighters, but that seems largely irrelevant. Credible estimates say there are about 25,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza, and 2+ million civilians. That's a bit over 1%. A rounding error. Books and artillery don't distinguish. If you'd like to say that 1 or 2 percent of the dead are fighters, knock yourself out. It still adds up to an unimaginable humanitarian toll. The IDF grades itself much more generously, claiming for every two civilians they have killed one militant. I don't think that's much to cheer about. They could probably improve that record if they stopped bombing civilians.

Revising an initial, large, round-number estimate by 30 is normal and reasonable. That's an adjustment of about half of one percent from the initial estimate. Which is impressive, particularly when it would have been in their best political interest revise more dramatically. (It's like you have the same misplaced sense of outrage from when you were inverting the adjustment, even though the adjustment numbers are perfectly reasonable now. You have updated your facts without updating your emotional response.) And the second number you reference with a HUGE range is NOT rom the health ministry. That's not a revision. That's the US intelligence estimate without even being on the ground. (And here you are just being dishonest. You want to throw stones at the health ministry for a revision of 30 casualties, but seem content taking at have value an off-site estimate with a stated range 6.7x as large. Come on.) So, again, do you have any real answer as to why we should suddenly mistrust an organization that has historically provided accurate and timely information of this type? If they've been consistently reliable before, what has changed? Just bigotry ramping up?