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.

I think it's a matter of decorum. In general we shouldn't attack people's kids (when they're minors) for normal occurrences, even if their a public figure.

I was against bashing Barron when he was a minor, and I'm against bashing Gus until he's of legal age. In general, however, I refrain from bashing people and would encourage the same decorum from others.

Being able to criticize is not open license to do so in my opinion.

Him, most other world leaders, most of the populace, etc etc. Under your definition nearly everyone is an evil piece of shit. /Shrug

All of the icons are great, but the Zangief icon on King of Fighters 93 takes the cake.

You're not wrong. NCOs don't have commissions, so they're lower ranked than commissioned officers. Him being the "highest ranked officer" is incorrect, and anyone who has been in the military would immediately latch on to that.

Cmd Sgt Maj is an honorable rank that takes a career to earn - no need to overinflate it with garbage to make the point. It's impressive on its own.

Edit: for clarification, John McCain was a Navy Captain (O3) which is higher ranked than Cmd Sgt Maj (E9). Therefore Tim Walz isn't the highest ranked officer to serve. I love Tim, but it's incorrect to state than an E9 outranks an O3.

What propaganda are you talking about? He's leaving office, so what is left to manipulate here other than his legacy, which doesn't really impact anyone?

I think that analogy is worse. If my scumbag sibling killed someone and I didn't say they were a scumbag and distance myself from them and instead defended them and enabled them to continue being a scumbag I damn well deserve others' ire.

This isn't the one bad cop in America, this is just one of many whose colleagues enable and approve of their actions. Often defenders of these shitbags say, "it's just one bad apple" but they forget the rest of the saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch. In this case, too, the people that should hold themselves to a higher standard as a group are the ones making themselves look shitty by not doing so.

Not sure how people with family and friends of "decent cops" can defend them as a whole, particularly when most of them call on their cop friend or family member to help get them out of tickets. They're just as bad (lol).

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

Yeah, see there you go assuming I wasn't one of those people. I was and still am, but I'm also reasonable. Nothing changes if Joe drops now or 3 months ago - the incumbency advantage is lost and the next available candidates look... Not great. The only difference is that Trump would have more time to attack the opposition. The tradeoff is that doing it now means we have to trust the DNC to run a short campaign effectively, but we've seen that they can't run a long campaign effectively, so it doesn't really matter. If you're in the, "no to fascism" vote crowd, the DNC could put up a turnip and it would get my vote.

Nah fam. I know you think you're some oracle that can see how things go, but I can safely say if I ever thought Harris was viable I would gladly bang the drum for her and say, "well at least Harris can win" but quite frankly she has a snowball's chance in hell. I'm voting against fascism this election no matter who it is, but I'm certainly not voting for anyone in particular. That was the same with Biden. Nothing has really changed since I'm capable of making rational decisions. The calculus is the same - vote against fascism. Just looks a whole lot bleaker now.

Who is supposed to do that? When do I get my sheeple call? Instead of listening to them I should totally listen to a free thinker such as yourself - then I'd be such an independent thinker 🙄

Yeah, it's a terrible direction. I don't see a viable path forward for Democrats now. Biden caved to pressure from fear mongers and a Trump win is looking pretty good. If I took your advice I could vote 3rd party and enjoy my smugness while I watch a new fascist regime take hold.

You demand people think for themselves and don't agree with their outcome. People have thought of the arguments you make and they're not convincing. Telling people to "not be a good little follower" when following Biden is the most reasonable outcome given the circumstances is silly given the alternatives involve either voting against your best interests directly or drastically changing the way elections are determined which isn't going to happen 4 months before the election. Give it a rest.

I was surprised at the comment until I saw who made it.