• 0 Posts
  • 147 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: August 17th, 2024

help-circle
  • In a way, AOC was right.

    Wanted to add that the there’s an exception to this. The actual law states that, among other categories,

    Candidates for the senate and assembly nominated by each political party at the primary,

    Also, from https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/08/26/wisconsin-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-lawsuit-against-green-party-ballot-access/

    Legislative candidates can also be electors.

    So if the Green Party had fielded candidates for these lower offices, then those candidates could also serve as the electors and they wouldn’t have this problem. Which hits the point that AOC made well, that the Green Party needs to be building at the grassroots and fielding candidates in more lower offices.

    If we check the law itself again, there’s also this bit,

    8.185 Write-in candidates for president and vice president. … (2) Any candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States as write-in candidates shall file a list of presidential electors … Compliance with this subsection may be waived by the commission … In such event, the write-in candidate shall have until 4:30 p.m. on the Friday following the general election to comply with the filing requirements of this subsection.

    It’s interesting to see that the requirements are more lax for write-in candidates - not needing to decide on the electors until after the election has been held.

    And if a write-in or independent or third party did win the election, I think it’s a possibility that retiring state senators from other parties might well agree to serve as electors for that candidate (as the better alternative to seeing the state’s electoral votes lost).

    So if Jill Stein were a write-in candidate, then it’s possible to see her getting an actual slate of electors in Wisconsin if she did win the election in that state.

    That being the case, perhaps there’s some legal rabbit that the Green Party is waiting to pull out of their hat to solve this when the time is right - say to argue and convince the WEC and the courts that the more lax write-in deadline should apply to Stein and the Green Party upon their victory.















  • Yeah, I think it should have been broken up at least with commas like so (or the appropriate pauses when spoken outloud),

    Moscow agreed to discharge Indian nationals, who were illegally inducted into the Russian Armed Forces, during a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July.

    Although a minor rewrite would be better,

    During a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July, Moscow agreed to discharge Indian nationals who were illegally inducted into the Russian Armed Forces.






  • The problem is. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. They don’t want a two state solution
    they won’t accept or recognize Israel at all.

    Agree this is a problem. They caused Oct 7 and they need to be stopped.

    The innocent Gazans unaffiliated with Hamas, and the PA and the folks living in the West Bank deserve to have their country and their rights respected, but none of that should read as saying Hamas should stay in power, or even be allowed to exist at all.

    Then your problem is you blame their denial for a two state solution on Netanyahu.

    This is a misreading of my argument. Hamas != State of Palestine

    Or you expect him to give the terrorists sovereignty anyways.

    Well, not to Hamas!

    Why would he have complete supporte for their sovereignty given what his country has seen at their hand.

    Again, not to Hamas! For the past twenty years the PA has kept peace with Israel - this is the model to follow.

    The right answer to this is why do they need a military. They are surrounded by Muslim brothers.

    Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict

    There are various countries today without a military force.

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that magical wizards come in and fix everything. We end up with two states tied together by peace, with the violence behind them. (Model for this being the Troubles in Northern Ireland.) Or even a single Israel state with peace - for the sake of this argument, this detail doesn’t matter.

    It’s a volatile area with lots of conflict between different countries, even if one excludes Hamas and related insurgents. Any country in that area would need a military just to defend its own existence.

    The countries that don’t have any military forces - I imagine none of them are in this kind of situation.

    I’m sure israel would offer their protection as well as allies near them.

    In theory that could work. The problem in practice is that IDF has lost a lot of good will, and perhaps might be seen as occupiers instead of peacekeepers from a friendly allied country. Hence my suggestion for Malaysia to step in - Islamic troops from a far away neutral country - might be better perceived.

    Heck, a lot of goodwill might be earned just by being fresh and new. Now that may not be entirely fair to the IDF, but politics is rarely fair.