homura1650

People have been warning from day 1 about the possibility of a regional escalation.

Apparently you cannot spend months acting in a way that neighboors who already don't like you find morally reprehensible without some of those neighbors inserting themselves into the conflict.

The real question is how long can Iran avoid getting dragged into that. And if Iran gets involved directly, will we be able to contain this to a regional war, or will this small decades old conflict between parties whose total population is only about 12 million become the trigger for world war 3.

Biden tried to restart the deal back in 2021, and has been trying ever since.

However, it turns out that the US is not the only party involved in international treaties. We can't just pick up the ball and go home mid game, then come back in a year with a new coach and expect everyone to continue playing like nothing happened

The original deal was a difficult achievement on its own. Now, we need to not only repeat that, but also deal with the fact that Iran does not trust us to follow through with our end of the deal. Overcoming that needs good negotiation, and a lot of concessions we did not want to make.

This is why administrations of both parties have historically upheld deals made by the opposing party that they didn't like. Unilaterally breaking deals every 4 years because of who wins an election makes the US a non-credible partner in negotiations. You can't just wave a wand and fix that.

I think we should invest more into the nuclear power plant.

The DNC is planning of formally nominating the democratic ticket on August 5, which does not leave much time to pick a replacement (even if the replacement is vice president Harris).

The August 5 date was picked back when everyone thought the nomination was a mere formality, in order to comply with an August 7 deadline from Ohio. Ohio, for its part, has pushed the deadline back to September, but I don't think the DNC wants to risk a ballot challenge making it's way to the Supreme Court.

Israel: Our demands to end the war are simple. The complete destruction of Hamas and a non-Hamas government in Gaza.

US: Ok. We found a Palestinian organization with decades of governing experience, and a history of working well with you. Also, they have been opposed to Hamas since Hamas took over Gaza.

Israel: Ok, as long as we don't need to admit to working with them.

US: Fair enough. PA, Israel and I have been destabilizing and radicalizing Gaza for decades. No country in the world is willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole now. Would you mind fixing that for us?

PA: So, you'll recognize us as a partial governing party is Gaza.

Israel: No. Our voters won't stand for us working with Palestinians. We just want you to do all of the work, and take the blame for every that goes wrong.

US: You should really consider it. It's a good deal.

Israel: Also, since your here, these are some new settlements our people are building in your land on the West Bank. Could you keep your people peaceful during this? K, thanks.

PA: Yeah ... No.

I wonder why Israel can't find a credible partner for peace.

It was expensive and solved almost none of the actual problems

1. Difficulties distributing food within Gaza? Boats don't work on land, so you end up loading it all into the exact same trucks you would use for land crossings, so run into the exact same issues.

2. Difficulties getting enough aid through Israeli checks? By design, Israel inspected all pier deliveries as they left Cyprus, and again as they arrived at Gaza, and the IDF controlled the staging beach within Gaza. If they were giving you problems at all the other crossings they control, they will give you the same problems at this one.

3. Distance between the crossing and where aid is needed? Sure. Technically this could help some depending on the details of the logistics work being done within Gaza. But... Gaza is just not that big.

4. Attacks by Hamas? As far as aid deliveries go, this has only ever been an issue internal to Gaza, so see point 1.

5. Attacks by starving Gazans? See point 1. Also, aid being stolen by starving people is mission accomplished

6. Egypt closing their border crossing? Sure, but again, Gaza is not that large, the Israeli land crossings are still fine.

7. Attacks by Israeli terrorists? Sure, but the Israeli police has been doing a fine job dealing with this already, so it has not been an actual bottleneck.

8. Attack by the IDF that hit people attempting to distribute aid within Gaza? See 1.

9. Lack of adequate practice for the US military to deploy a naval logistics platform? Fair enough, this project did solve that. Not sure what that has to do with the humanitarian situation in Gaza though.

At the end of the day, this pier project has always been the "something" to calls within the US that "we have to do something".

On the scale of privacy concerns, anything that starts with "they took physical possession of my device" ranks pretty low on my list.

Also not an expert, but I don't think so.

The big threat of that would be a dismissal after a jury was sworn. At that point, jeopardy attached, so rebringing the case could be unconditional under the double jeopardy clause [0].

The virtually unappealable way to do this would be to wait until the prosecution finishes their case. At that point, the defense will file a routine motion for a directed verdict that judges routinely deny. The defense gets to do that again after presenting their case. In either case, the judge granting the motion is not apealable.

The judge could wait until after a verdict and issue a judgement not withstanding verdict, but that is appealable.

[0] Not always though. A mistrial from a hung Jury can always be retired. Other forms of mistrial may be retryable depending on the facts.

He didn't "collapse" or "fall". He reached for his ear (where he was hit) and had a general "WTF is going on" face, then after a few seconds, ducked behind the podium as secret service yelled at him to get down.

He seemed able to walk away on his own, although it is hard to tell exactly since his human shields might have been supporting him. As he was leaving, he was well enough to project an image of good spirits and raise a fist, seemingly getting into a bit of a fight with his secret service, who seemed to want him to stay small and hidden behind them.

It was a political rally. Those are always done with flags. It was a political rally, there were a bunch of cameras running. Many of which were taking dozens if pictures every second; there wasn't even anything to release there, the media was the ones taking the video. Of course the most striking image would be the one to catch on, and from watching a video of it, that seems like the obvious moment to take.

It was some fast thinking and good political instinct (although bad survival instinct) to make a photo perfect pose while getting escorted out by secret service.

The age requirement applies at inauguration. AOC is old enough to run this cycle by a few months.