.....
.....
Haven't put any words in your mouth. You're just too ignorant to recognize that you're arguing for more centralization of power.
You're still doing. Is this non-existant civil service you want to create elected, or just another branch of the executive.
Just to restate, you actually believe creating an entire new civil service with less public oversight would be easier then just combating corruption in people with elected positions? A civil service that would be less likely to become corrupt with less oversight?
You do realize the founding fathers you venerate intentionally created three Manchus of government intentionally to protect people from the state, right? One of those branches, the one you want to get rid of, is called the judicial branch.
Jesus, you know next to nothing of American civics and you have the gall to completely misrepresent the founding fathers to justify undoing their work to accomplish what they already created for the same person.
Yeah, cause there is anyone left wing on the city council and like we haven't had a succession of center right Democrats that used to be republicans as mayors.
The city is the way it is under leadership that aligns with your politics.
The city we have is the city we get if you get everything you want politically. It's literally your mess.
You're complaining about corruption in elected positions, and want to replace it by giving more power to the DA, or to remove the human aspect and give everything over a computer assigning mandatory minimums that only ever seem to go up.
If you have a problem with corruption, you fight the corruption. You don't consolidate power into even fewer hands, with no mercy(not that there is much of that in the first place.)
The founding fathers were a bunch of rich white dudes, that almost to a one, fail every moral standard today. Some of them would and were considered assholes in their own time. Acting like they were incredibly thoughtful/wise elder statesmen is the only Hollywood trope either one of us has brought up. Part of the protections they did try and put into place was to spread power out, and make those positions ones that elected. You know, the stuff you want to remove?
This isn't some small point, either. Your view validates mandatory minimum sentencing and other systemically racist structures.
Judges should make judgments. It's literally the job title. A judge is someone you're supposed to be able to trust to take into account all the human stuff and make decisions based off it.
You want a judge that makes the judgment call that a plea deal is okay? Fine.
You want a judge that throws away a plea deal they think is too light? Fine.
You want a judge that adds up minimum sentences and could be replaced by a computer? Not fine.
The local population for the south is Hezbollah. Or, rather, their very popular base of support is in southern Lebanon. The people in Beirut that Israel likes to bomb, because that is the only type of military operation they are good at, are not the power base of Hezbollah, and often are ideologically opposed to Hezbollah.
Remember, the reason Hezbollah exists is because Israel invaded southern Lebanon, and the people there greeted then as liberators at first (remember, southern Lebanon is ideologically not allied with the people of northern Lebanon, the demographics of Lebanon are what make it a basketcase politically) Until they realized that the Israeli's were going to take over there and continue to oppress them. Thus was born Hezbollah who successfully drove the Israeli's out, and then did so again in 2006. Frankly, they're the best light infantry fighters in that part of the world by a long mile.
The majority of Israeli's themselves view 2006 as a loss. So far, it looks like even the moderate Israeli's are viewing this peace deal as a loss.
One of the stupidest ways of viewing who won a war is by looking at death counts.
By that view, America won the Vietnam war, and Nazi Germany defeated the Soviet Union.
The Lebanese government is a basket case, and the Lebanese military is likely weaker than Hezbollah.
Any article that does not explicitly state that Hezbollah (and not simply the Lebanese government) agreed to a ceasefire is not stating anything of substance.
Now, Hezbollah said they'd make a statement today about this deal, and I haven't seen the outcome of that yet. They may have agreed to it today.
The point is, however, that this specific article didn't say what the person above said it did. Namely that Hezbollah agreed to anything.
They've won everything they have through fighting. Turns out that the Israeli's, like every other occupying force in history, find being an occupying force to be utterly corrosive to their fighting capabilities. Right now, without air cover, they are nothing.
How does your nationality impact your utter ignorance of the percentage of weapons that Israel receives comes from America.
Great way to try and change the subject of your utter ignorance to one of your nationality, but you're the only one bringing it up, and it's perfectly clear to everyone reading what you're doing. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, you stooge. What a weird fucking insult to throw in there.
Also, if they want to defend themselves they should. Themselves. Oh, that's right, they can't.
Also, genocide is not self defense. Nor is apartheid or annexation.
EDIT: go ahead and read the edit I've made to the comment you responded to.
What are you even talking about here? This line invalidates everything else you've said.