You'll have an aneurysm playing the "if this were any other president" game with Trump, but the USPS story really is at the top of the list.

Same ones as always--the level of political action. I can restate for you if it's confusing: "I condemn the treatment of Palestinians, but I refuse to take even the most anodyne political action against the state responsible for their treatment" is a contradiction in terms. It is, as I implied in my second post here, not a legitimate and coherent political position as long as we also assume that condemning an apartheid state would be expressed as a political action. If, on the other hand, we take it to be a piece of meaningless political theatre, then in a sense it's coherent but only tautologically.

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

It's what makes the "everyone is so hard on Trump" discourse so absurd. In 2012, a President Obama says he's stopping the Post Office from getting funding to stop people from voting to help him win an election? The GOP would have lit the White House on fire by now. It's a 50/50 shot this even makes every front page tomorrow.

Love this post.

I know, right? He tries so hard. I am guessing this is the thing he talking about: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... 6/all-info

Not exactly "denouncing the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements", but then again why confuse the jello-brains with reality?

Rubio, Cardin Introduce Senate Resolution Condemning Anti-Israel Efforts at United Nations

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) today introduced a Senate resolution objecting to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, as well as all efforts that undermine direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for a secure and peaceful settlement. They are joined in this effort by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dean Heller (R-NV), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Todd Young (R-IN).

“Efforts to delegitimize Israel have been underway a long time at the United Nations and have now sadly been aided by the outgoing administration, but the time has come to turn back the tide and renew America’s commitment to the Jewish state,” said Rubio. “When it comes to the U.S.-Israel alliance, we believe that senators of both parties must stand firmly with Israel and condemn efforts to undermine Israel's legitimacy. This resolution expresses the Senate's rejection of continued anti-Israel efforts at the United Nations, reiterates our commitment to Israel, and urges the incoming administration to work with Congress on this issue.”

You're right--that's exactly what I had in mind, the Rubio bill that Harris eventually signed on to. Hmm, how did Marco Rubio talk about this bill when it was proposed?



From Rubio's press office, by the way--so okay, sure, they didn't "denounce" the UN vote, they only objected to it, condemned it, and rejected it. You really got me there, great work today.

Interfering by...condemning the settlements which are not only illegal but are in themselves a pretty big interference to negotiations and definitely "set back the cause of peace." C'mon man, just because you're not able to sift between text and context doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. This argument only holds water if you think the "peace process" is contingent on the rest of the world allowing the Israeli state to operate with impunity in the interim. Maybe you do think that! But then you can't really claim to condemn the treatment of the Palestinians at the same time.

Interfering by...condemning the settlements which are not only illegal but are in themselves a pretty big interference to negotiations and definitely "set back the cause of peace." C'mon man, just because you're not able to sift between text and context doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. This argument only holds water if you think the "peace process" is contingent on the rest of the world allowing the Israeli state to operate with impunity in the interim. Maybe you do think that! But then you can't really claim to condemn the treatment of the Palestinians at the same time.

Sorting machines are being removed from mail centres and mail boxes are being removed from streets

If this was anywhere else the US would invade to ‘protect democracy’.