Chapelgentry

Ah yeah I remember that! I remember everyone talking about the 3% threshold where (if I remember correctly) the green party would be included in debates and receive federal campaign funds. Hell, if they couldn't do it at the height of Nader always I don't see that happening now, particularly under Stein.

Wait, the Green Party only had 300k members at it's peak? That's 0.001% of the American population. Why are all the tankies in here talking about how voting for Stein will make a difference? That's not even enough to consider her a contender in most states, much less for the whole country.

Sure, feel free. It's your vote. Hope you have the same energy to wag your finger at genocide when Republicans kick it into overdrive. Hope your disapproval is strong enough to get you off your couch to do something about it.

So your options are: vote for ultra-genocide, vote for disapproving genocide, or vote for ultra-genocide but you feel good about it. Great options.

World leaders throughout history do that with dictators. Your solution would be to start wars over public insults? Dictators aren't going to take public insults lightly, particularly those with nuclear capability.

I'd imagine that having no allies in the Middle East isn't a strategically sound plan. If Israel is going to do their thing anyway and can arm themselves we gain nothing by rebuke. The only way we could enact real change would be to threaten or attack our only ally in the region which is self-defeating and doesn't solve the problem.

I think the easiest way to prove he didn't is to prove someone else did. I don't think he will be able to do that easily, particularly because I think he made those posts.

To clarify, what were the previous posters being dishonest about? The threat of the boiling water? If it's that, I would conjecture that the cop mishandling the situation was what made the threat even a little credible.

If not that, can you give me more detail on what the others were being dishonest about?

I think the bit of context here that is lacking is why she felt the need to drop to the floor in the first place. Was she hurt? Dizzy? Pain medication kick in? Did he point his gun at her and she reflexively dropped? The pot didn't go with her; it was still on the sink. From the cops' vantage point he would've likely seen that.

Beyond that, she's the victim. Granted, police should use due diligence when responding to calls, but taking the stance that anyone is an adversary leads to guns being drawn and people being beaten waaay too early in the interaction and with little provocation. Suspicion of all leads to paranoid responses, and we see the fruits of that in this and other encounters.

I'f be curious to know which you see as being more important here - the cops' life or the civilians? Just trying to understand the frame of reference.

I think you're overstating the threat here. The above commenter, though being facetious, is making a good point. The cop told her to take her pasta off the stove and even joked with her about avoiding the steam. Then he shot her. She was standing at a sink behind a raised-bar style countertop with a pot of water. Assuming she's going to be able to chuck it over the counter at the cop is a bit of a stretch, particularly given her demeanor throughout the encounter. Nevermind the fact that she's standing there with two armed men that could easily kill her (and one did), it's bonkers to assume she would have both the motive and capability to do so.

It's one thing if she behaved erratically to that point, but she didn't. Additionally, if the cop was really concerned about the pot he could have said, "no, stay on the couch." It's just an odd hill to die on stating the cop was concerned about the pot.

I think Mark Kelly would be a safe bet for the nomination. I heard he was already approached about it