Only took him until his lame duck session to start caring about foreign policy. A good start would have been not removing the missile defense systems out of eastern Europe a few years ago...
It is all about reassuring Germany and Poland. That small of a force is not going to stop anyone, but it will make Trump look bad to Western Europe if he pulls them out in two weeks.
I have a feeling that a lot of what Obama is doing now is to make Trump look bad when he takes office and reverses it.
I'm not sure if you were implying this, but there is like a 0% chance Russia would send troops to these countries. Germany and Poland might be concerned about Estonia and Ukraine, which is far more legitimate. I just don't get why Obama didn't do this years ago. It makes more sense than the constant spatting against Russia in Syria.
In a surprise to no one, Dylann Roof is sentenced to death. Now take him out behind the courthouse and shoot him, none of this years and years of appeals.
There will be. It'll probably be ten years before they carry out the sentence. Which is pointless, because in a case like this there is literally no chance he isn't guilty. I'm sure the courts will hear from advocates rambling about intellectual disabilities and how he was too confused to make an informed choice to mass murder. Just breaks your heart, executing a delicate snowflake like that.
Yep. This was the Federal trial. Now comes a state trial for exactly the same thing he's already convicted of at the federal level. It's a pointless waste of time and money since he's said he did it and has absolutely zero remorse. Just put a damn bullet in his head and everyone can move on.
I may appear to be a bleeding heart liberal here, but let's discuss the distinction between "absolute guilt, kill him today" and "we're not so sure, let's take another look at it." Where is the line we should draw that would let us make that determination? Sure, the facts show that he committed the crimes and the courts have sentenced him, but in order to have an immediate execution, we first have to establish what qualifies a person for that judgement. Without that very clear line, we can't carry out an immediate sentence on anyone, regardless of our feelings on his guilt. Let me preempt some arguments by stating that "when it's obvious" is not an acceptable criteria. There have been hundreds of "obvious" criminals whose lives were spared by new evidence that exonerated them and allowed their release from death row. We cannot risk executing an innocent person in order to satisfy our thirst for blood and revenge.
I agree, but that's where you have to draw the line between whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. I would like to see it allowed, but with the burden for proof substantially raised to get that sentence. If it merely goes beyond reasonable doubt, then they get a life sentence and not the death penalty. Since you can't really trust the courts to not fuck that up, I think we shouldn't have a death penalty. However, if you are going to have it, you shouldn't have several appeals just because. If there's no new evidence that could realistically change the outcome let him rot in the cell until you carry out the sentence. We don't need multiple trials to reevaluate his 'state of mind' or any of that bullshit. They're likely to spend $3 million or more, repeatedly confirming his guilt.
The data for 2016 isn't out yet, but I doubt it's changed very substantially. - 37% of Americans make $20k or less - 50% make $30k or less - 62% make $40k or less - 71% make $50k or less Worth thinking about when news outlets claim the economy is doing well because unemployment rates aren't too high. Living on $30k/yr is hard. If you're making that in a city it's damn near impossible to pay the bills. What income level do people consider middle class? I would say anything over $50k because I think that's where you can comfortably pay rent, own a car, pay grocery bills, etc.
I'd say that this is accurate for a single person who is living in Atlanta. The last girl I dated payed $750 per month for rent (before utilities) for a ghetto, cockroach infested one-bedroom apartment that had been broken into twice in the 3 years that she had lived there (she liked living there because there were no cops around, but that's beside the point). In Atlanta, with a $15 per hour job and no other sources of income you're limited to living in that kind of apartment or having to have roommates. I imagine that it's even harder in many other major cities.
I've thought about this one. We had a case in Canada a few years ago. In 2009 a six-year-old girl went missing. A country-wide manhunt ensued, and she was ultimately found dead. The investigation revealed the following: - Closed-circuit television of her former babysitter stopping by her school, taking her by the hand and walking her to her car. - CCTV footage from Home Depot of the babysitter and her boyfriend, buying a hammer and green garbage bags less than 30 minutes later. - Data from Rogers Wireless that showed his cell phone pinging off towers that lead to the field where the child was found (wrapped up inside the garbage bags, killed with a hammer). - His DNA on the girl, as he had raped her. - A confession from the babysitter. I'm not sure where we draw the line between "reasonable doubt" and "there is 0.000% probability that this did not happen," but this case fits it. In such cases, I agree with ToyToy; stand them against a wall and shoot them. With digital media, rampant surveillance and electronic tracking devices, we've crossed into a (presently) undefined legal area where a burden of proof can actually exceed reasonable doubt.
What an interesting turn of events. I thought police body cameras were for the greater good? Apparently not. The ACLU is demanding that all government cameras be shut off during the inauguration. Gee...wouldn't that make it so much more easier to goad an officer into beating the tar out of you and us only seeing video of the beat down, not what led up to it? Remember the ACLU is also the group that cracked down on Chicago cops last year and golly gosh didn't that turn out well? News 4's Mark Segraves reports on why D.C. police officers' body cameras often will be off, and how citizens will be able to record the officers.
So here's what the ACLU actually has to say about that. tl:dr; Cops have a long history with taping protests, finding people at those protests, then beating the snot out of them.
So did you ever wonder what would happen if you crossed a MIlo speech with UC Berkley? Well, wonder no more. Watch it live:
Perhaps theyre angry about him stealing all those funds for his "scholarship program" or whatever the fuck it is. Berkeley seems to love bad publicity. Fucking pathetic. Imagine being so petty that you burn your school because somebody on campus is saying words to people. Defund that fucking school already. It's a factory that creates lowlifes.
"The Birthplace of the Free Speech Movement." I guess they're over that. EDIT: HAHAHAHAHAHA! They just looted a Starbucks! EDIT 2: And looted a Wells Fargo and a Chase bank. Still no police. And there goes another Starbucks. Promising to hire 10K refugees wasn't enough I guess. EDIT 3: So much for the live stream I was watching. They just attacked the cameraman and the stream went dead.
And nobel prizes: https://www.berkeley.edu/news/features/nobel/ A couple idiots show up at a protest and ya'll are ready to shut down one of the crown jewels of American higher education.