The News Thread

[Spinal]

Does Portland even have a history of Earthquakes like LA does? (serious question)

Not nearly as frequent obviously. But experts say we are due for a big one. And the city's buildings and bridges are not ready for it.

[Irish]

Sounds like it's basically DOMA in reverse. Federal court rules on it, but states want to go their own route. So, strictly speaking, legally, they are allowed to be married whenever and wherever and they will be officially recognized by the legal system. But there are going to be problems with crazy people and more conservative states. This doesn't mean anything will change.

Federal courts don't write laws. They're forcing the notaries to record marriages as marriages if that is what people want. This is different than it being legal.

[Irish]

Ruling party in favor + 79% agreement among government body + 75% of public in favor = legalization in the near future.

Your ability to skim headlines -- outside any other real world context -- and draw rapid conclusions is .. impressive.

By this line of thinking, legalized marijuana is imminent in the United States. (Fucking polling, how does it work?)

[Mara]

This stupid video totally has me crying. An old lady describes her house being destroyed, and then actually finds her little dog alive under the rubble during the interview.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147264n

[number8]

That desperate "help me" as she tried to lift the rubble. I wonder if the cameraman just wanted to drop all his shit right then and there.

[MadMan]

Ireland has the second steepest decline of faith in the world after Vietnam. The latest Gallup poll showed that less than 50% of the country's population identified as being religious.

Ah. I stand corrected.

You can live in the Midwest, you just need a basement to hide in when the bigass fucking tornado decides to tear ass through your town. Its really sad what's happening in Oklahoma-I'm guessing the death toll will go up, unfortunately...

[Dukefrukem]

He would have to hit 1000 HRs by the All-star break to match what Kevin Durant just donated.

OK well I don't know how to embed Twitter posts, but Matt Kemp just tweeted he's donating $1000 per HR he hits for Tornado relief. Keep in mind he's only hit 1 this entire season.

[Lucky]

This stupid video totally has me crying. An old lady describes her house being destroyed, and then actually finds her little dog alive under the rubble during the interview.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147264n

There's something that I like about the way she says, "I know exactly what happened here, Dear." Like an admonition only an older woman can give.

I'm glad she found her dog and it seems intact. It ironically reminds me of Toto.

[B-side]

Federal courts don't write laws. They're forcing the notaries to record marriages as marriages if that is what people want. This is different than it being legal.

They set precedent. And the ruling wasn't just about converting existing civil unions to marriages. It was about nationwide recognition forcing notaries to allow them. Like I said, it doesn't make it permanent, but it does give them a window to marry with mandatory legal recognition. Congress may very well end up legislating something contrary, but as it stands, it's legal.

[B-side]

Your ability to skim headlines -- outside any other real world context -- and draw rapid conclusions is .. impressive.

Where am I wrong, exactly? I made an educated guess based on empirical data.

By this line of thinking, legalized marijuana is imminent in the United States. (Fucking polling, how does it work?)

A very slim majority of Americans favor it, yes. This is extraordinarily different than what's happening with gay marriage in Ireland, and how you're not seeing that is astonishing. There is no government body in the US campaigning for the legalization of marijuana. Only a handful of senators and congresspeople support it, so no, it's absolutely nothing like the gay marriage situation in Ireland. If 3/4 of the US population supported gay marriage, you can bet your ass there'd be senators and congresspeople "evolving" on the issue instantly. But as it stands, not even all liberals in government support it, so there's not a chance in hell it would pass as nationwide legislation. The government body in Ireland that voted overwhelmingly to legalize it is not capable of actually making law, but it gives the government a sense of where it should be aiming its focus and what needs to be done. Add to that the fact that political support among the parties is near universal, and major figures in the current government support it, and you have a well-established path to legalization.

[Irish]

Where am I wrong, exactly? I made an educated guess based on empirical data.

That wasn't empirical data. It was a second hand statistic coming from organizations that have a vested interest in gay marriage. (Quoting stats from surveys when you don't know the questions asked or the sample sizes is odious at best).

I'm not saying gay marriage will never pass in Ireland. Just that it won't be anytime soon. For context: This is 2013, and Ireland is one of three countries in Europe where abortion is still illegal (the others are Malta and Vatican City). It's a conservative country.

I'd be surprised, given the drubbing they've taken over the sex-abuse scandals and the vitriol happening now over abortion that they'd have the will to press forward toward more social liberalism. People might have left the Church over the scandals, but that doesn't mean they abandoned the values they grew up with.

This is extraordinarily different than what's happening with gay marriage in Ireland, and how you're not seeing that is astonishing.

Pot is an admittedly weak corollary. I was trying to think of something off the cuff that might enjoy popular support but has no way of getting passed into law anytime soon.

Politicians will say a lot of things when it doesn't cost them any political capital. It doesn't mean they'll vote that way. Especially after they just got finished wrestling over something like abortion.

[Irish]

Congress may very well end up legislating something contrary, but as it stands, it's legal.

I may have read the sources wrong, but this is like saying that prostitution and gambling are legal in the US. Technically, that's kinda sorta true but it doesn't tell the full story (especially as neither are legal at the federal level). Same goes for gay marriage in Brazil.

This is, to me, mostly a semantic argument though. Brazil had civil unions already, and those conferred a helluva lot of rights to both partners.

So a victory can be claimed here, I guess, but it seems to be mostly about what box people want checked on a government form.

[B-side]

That wasn't empirical data. It was a second hand statistic coming from organizations that have a vested interest in gay marriage. (Quoting stats from surveys when you don't know the questions asked or the sample sizes is odious at best).

You think the Christian Science Monitor is skewing Irish data? Really? Here's an earlier poll, from a different site, with a sample size of 971 people:

A new poll shows that 66 percent of Irish adults support same-sex marriage.

According to the Journal.ie, the Behaviour and Attitudes poll in the Sunday Times found that among the 971 people who were surveyed earlier this month believe in gay marriage with legal entitlements.

I'm not saying gay marriage will never pass in Ireland. Just that it won't be anytime soon. For context: This is 2013, and Ireland is one of three countries in Europe where abortion is still illegal (the others are Malta and Vatican City). It's a conservative country.

Two totally different issues. Abortion is almost completely illegal in South America, and yet it's still home to three countries with legal same sex marriage.

I'd be surprised, given the drubbing they've taken over the sex-abuse scandals and the vitriol happening now over abortion that they'd have the will to press forward toward more social liberalism. People might have left the Church over the scandals, but that doesn't mean they abandoned the values they grew up with.

I've got news for you: Argentina is 92% Catholic. Majority support gay marriage, and sex change operations are not only OK, but they're covered by insurance and you're allowed to legally change your name and sexual orientation without surgery. Brazil is 74% Roman Catholic and 15% Protestant. Sex change operations considered a constitutional right. Civil unions and gay marriage, for the most part. Roughly 80% of Uruguayans are some form of Catholic/Christian. Just legalized same sex marriage with a huge majority. France is also 88% Catholic. Majority support gay marriage, and it passed with relative ease through the legislature.

Pot is an admittedly weak corollary. I was trying to think of something off the cuff that might enjoy popular support but has no way of getting passed into law anytime soon.

Pot doesn't even enjoy a comfortable majority of public support, so there's no reason to expect lawmakers will come around anytime soon.

Politicians will say a lot of things when it doesn't cost them any political capital. It doesn't mean they'll vote that way. Especially after they just got finished wrestling over something like abortion.

According to you, considering how strongly Catholic Ireland is, gay marriage should be an incredibly contentious issue and one many would seemingly want to avoid, and yet that's not the case at all since every major party has a vocal stance on the matter except for the ruling party (though senior figures within are known to be in favor). And, as you well know, voting against an ever-expanding group of voting youth who overwhelmingly support it is not going to win you any points.

[B-side]

I may have read the sources wrong, but this is like saying that prostitution and gambling are legal in the US.

When did the SCOTUS declare prostitution to be legal again? I don't remember that one.

Technically, that's kinda sorta true but it doesn't tell the full story (especially as neither are legal at the federal level). Same goes for gay marriage in Brazil.

Prostitution has never been pronounced legal by a federal court as far as I know, whereas gay marriage has in Brazil. Different scenarios.

This is, to me, mostly a semantic argument though. Brazil had civil unions already, and those conferred a helluva lot of rights to both partners.

So a victory can be claimed here, I guess, but it seems to be mostly about what box people want checked on a government form.

If you're gay, this is about a helluva lot more than checking a box.

[Irish]

When did the SCOTUS declare prostitution to be legal again? I don't remember that one.

Missing the point. Again, I might have misread my sources but gay marriage is still illegal in half of the Brazilian states. This is not entirely dissimilar to certain kinds of casino gambling being legal in New Jersey but not New York or Pennsylvania, or prostitution being legal in certain counties in Nevada but nowhere else.

Prostitution has never been pronounced legal by a federal court as far as I know, whereas gay marriage has in Brazil. Different scenarios.

Brazilian courts have not declared gay marriage legal. They can't, because they don't make new laws. They are clarifying bureaucratic protocols.

If you're gay, this is about a helluva lot more than checking a box.

Maybe, I dunno. If I had the rights then I'd care a little less about the nonclementure. Others might feel differently.

[B-side]

Missing the point. Again, I might have misread my sources but gay marriage is still illegal in half of the Brazilian states.

Only allowing for civil unions isn't the same as marriage being illegal. It just means the legal status has yet to be further clarified, which is what just happened.

This is not entirely dissimilar to certain kinds of casino gambling being legal in New Jersey but not New York or Pennsylvania, or prostitution being legal in certain counties in Nevada but nowhere else.

It is dissimilar. If SCOTUS ruled against DOMA completely, then gay marriage would be de facto legal across the country until congress went ahead with permanent legislation putting up hurdles and exploiting loopholes.

Brazilian courts have not declared gay marriage legal. They can't, because they don't make new laws. They are clarifying bureaucratic protocols.

SCOTUS doesn't draft legislation either, but it has say over what is or isn't constitutional. Some further clarification:

A panel that oversees the Brazilian judicial system ruled on Tuesday that the country's notaries public cannot deny marriage licenses to people of the same sex who live together.

The National Council of Justice based its decision on a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that gays in stable relationships should have the same rights as heterosexual couples in terms of retirement benefits, inheritance and alimony.

While Brazil's judiciary has taken the lead on legalizing same-sex marriage, full recognition will depend on the approval of a gay marriage law by Congress, where a bill has faced opposition from conservative evangelical lawmakers.

Notaries public in 12 of Brazil's 26 states and its Federal District are already complying with the 2011 ruling officializing gay marriages but often require court orders beforehand, according to a recent survey by O Globo newspaper.

Prior to Tuesday's ruling, gay couples could be denied marriage certificates because notaries public were not legally bound to marry them, but now notaries can be taken to court for refusing to do so.

The ruling was proposed by the chief justice of Brazil's Supreme Court, Joaquim Barbosa, who also heads the judicial oversight panel. He said gay couples were a part of Brazil's social reality and should not be discriminated against.

[Irish]

You think the Christian Science Monitor is skewing Irish data? Really?

No, because CS Monitor wasnt the original source of your "data." You referenced a group that had "marriage equality" in its name. I'm suggesting that might not be terrifically valid.

(Also, that Irish Constitutional Convention is a committee that has no power, and is made up of mostly random citizens. It's similar, in real world effectiveness, to the user submitted petitions on the White House website).

Here's an earlier poll, from a different site, with a sample size of 971 people:

Yeah, it's a pretty good poll as newspaper polls go. At least the question wasn't terrible. I can't deny the numbers, but I'm wary of polling numbers. Too often, especially on issues like this, the polls turn out to be wrong. Problems lie in biased or vague questions, the limitations of the form, and that people fib to pollsters all the time. (See: polling numbers on California's Prop 8 and Gallups numbers on the 2012 election, for example.)

I've got news for you: Argentina is 92% Catholic. Majority support gay marriage, and sex change operations are not only OK, but they're covered by insurance and you're allowed to legally change your name and sexual orientation without surgery. Brazil is 74% Roman Catholic and 15% Protestant. Sex change operations considered a constitutional right. Civil unions and gay marriage, for the most part. Roughly 80% of Uruguayans are some form of Catholic/Christian. Just legalized same sex marriage with a huge majority. France is also 88% Catholic. Majority support gay marriage, and it passed with relative ease through the legislature.

You're doing that thing again, where you draw conclusions based on the assumption that these countries all have similar histories and cultures. They don't.

For example, France might be historically Catholic but the government is adamantly secular and marriage there is almost rigidly secular. Not quite the same as Ireland.

Pot doesn't even enjoy a comfortable majority of public support, so there's no reason to expect lawmakers will come around anytime soon.

Forest, trees.

According to you, considering how strongly Catholic Ireland is, gay marriage should be an incredibly contentious issue and one many would seemingly want to avoid, and yet that's not the case at all since every major party has a vocal stance on the matter except for the ruling party (though senior figures within are known to be in favor). And, as you well know, voting against an ever-expanding group of voting youth who overwhelmingly support it is not going to win you any points.

It's 2013 and they're still arguing over abortion. It would be remarkable if they flipped on two major social causes in the same year, or same few years.

Do you want to argue about Taiwan now? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that too.

[Irish]

Only allowing for civil unions isn't the same as marriage being illegal. It just means the legal status has yet to be further clarified, which is what just happened.

That's a good point. Problem is, half the states didn't recognize gay marriage and it was up to the notary on whether to issue a license. There might not have been an out and out ban, but effectively this amounts to the same thing.

The victory is vulnerable because the court told the notaries to stop fucking around. They didn't legalize anything, and bills introduced into the Brazilian Congress on this issue have repeatedly failed.

It is dissimilar. If SCOTUS ruled against DOMA completely, then gay marriage would be de facto legal across the country

No, it wouldn't be. Those marriages would be in legal limbo. Without DOMA, states could still refuse to recognize marriages from any other state. Because there would be no federal law prohibiting that.

SCOTUS doesn't draft legislation either, but it has say over what is or isn't constitutional. Some further clarification:

Read through your own quoted text again. There's several lines in there that actually back up what I've been trying to say.

Let me try another analogy: There's a difference between legalizing drugs and decriminalizing them. Drugs aren't "legal" in the Netherlands and Portugal. But they are decriminalized. There's an important, and subtle, distinction there.

There's a similar, subtle distinction at play in Brazil with regards to gay marriage. They already had civil unions that conferred all the same rights as heterosexual marriages. They had half their states recognizing gay marriage. They told local bureaucrats to issue licenses if people requested them.

All of that is positive, but it's not quite the same as federally "legal."

[B-side]

No, because CS Monitor wasnt the original source of your "data." You referenced a group that had "marriage equality" in its name. I'm suggesting that might not be terrifically valid.

No polling group is unbiased. It doesn't make the numbers any less a reality. If the Koch brothers polled a thousand random people, asking them if they supported the Citizens United ruling, I'd still buy the numbers unless those polled were deliberately misled.

(Also, that Irish Constitutional Convention is a committee that has no power, and is made up of mostly random citizens. It's similar, in real world effectiveness, to the user submitted petitions on the White House website).

They don't make laws, no. I've already established this.

The Convention on the Constitution (Irish: An Coinbhinsiún ar an mBunreacht)[1] was established in Ireland in 2012 to discuss proposed amendments to the Constitution of Ireland.[2][3] More commonly called simply the Constitutional Convention, it met for the first time 1 December 2012 and will sit for one year. It has 100 members: a chairman; 29 members of the Oireachtas (parliament); 4 representatives of Northern Ireland political parties; and 66 randomly selected citizens of Ireland.

The Convention is mandated to consider eight specified issues, and may initiate more proposals if time permits. The government is not obliged to proceed with any amendment proposal, but has committed to respond formally to each recommendation and debate it in the Oireachtas.

The committee was formed BY the government for the purpose of prioritizing and gauging public opinion, and is committed to not only formally responding to its declarations, but forcing a debate on the matters. They're not 50,000 assholes wanting to rename the White House the Death Star or some shit.

You're doing that thing again, where you draw conclusions based on the assumption that these countries all have similar histories and cultures. They don't.

Without doubt Catholicism can be considered the first and most influential organised faith in the religious history of Argentina . The religion came over from Europe when the first voyages of discovery were made in 1502 with the voyage of Amerigo Vespucci. The Spanish navigator Juan DÃ*az de SolÃ*s visited the areas now known as Argentina in 1516. In 1536 the Spaniards founded a small settlement. The first permanent colony was actually on the site on modern day Buenos Aires in 1580 which at that time was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru.

Catholicism continued to hold power in Argentina up through the years until independence and following it too. Many natives were converted to the religion by missionaries and the general interaction with settlers. The Church went on to play a very important part in politics and law, traditionally with the two top leaders of country having to be Roman Catholic.

Sounds to me like a country pretty well dedicated to its religious founding.

For example, France might be historically Catholic but the government is adamantly secular and marriage there is almost rigidly secular. Not quite the same as Ireland.

The source of religious institutions power began with the drafting of the Irish Constitution in the mid-1930s when many Catholic Church groups made submissions that tried to increase the power of religious institutions. These submissions can be seen to have had a direct effect upon the final draft.

This was most apparent with the special protection afforded to the Catholic Church and a number of other denominations, though this was later removed by referendum in 1973. However the constitution still contains religious references in its preamble as well as articles covering education, the family and oaths of office that must be taken by the President, Judiciary and members of the Council of State.

Sounds an awful lot like our supposedly secular country. Also, more proof of the secularism within the actual population. The blog's name is irrelevant since it's only a vessel for the data.

It's 2013 and they're still arguing over abortion. It would be remarkable if they flipped on two major social causes in the same year, or same few years.

Argentina's abortion laws:

Abortion is illegal in Argentina. As interpreted, in addition to cases of mental incapacity, the law only permitted abortions in some instances in which the mother's life was at risk.

Only in 2010 -- the same year they legalized gay marriage -- was there an exception made for rape. It only last year was upheld by the higher court.

Up until 2012, abortions in Uruguay were punishable by a three-to-nine month jail sentence. Anyone caught performing one would face two years. It had been outright illegal since 1938.

Similar circumstances in Brazil.

Abortion can only be legally performed in Brazil if the pregnancy puts the life of the woman in danger or if the pregnancy is the result of a rape.[1] The punishment for a woman which performs an abortion on herself or consents to an abortion performed by another outside these legal exceptions is based in one to three years of detention.

Largest population of Roman Catholics in the world. And even public support of more inclusive abortion laws is not particularly strong. So the two are not as closely tied as you seem to believe, and countries are perfectly capable of reviewing both issues within a short time period.

Do you want to argue about Taiwan now? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that too.

There's already been a gay marriage performed in the country. There's a huge groundswell of public support. The high court has been delaying a decision, but now, since the previous couple who were bringing a lawsuit forward for having their marriage not officially recognized dropped it due to a lack of action, the main marriage equality activist in the country has taken it back up. It was proposed by the executive branch back in 2003, but the president said they needed public support. Chairman of the Democratic Opposition has come out in favor of its legalization. The judicial ruling has been handed over for a constitutional interpretation. An online poll in China of over 62,000 respondents, had a little over 50% in favor of its legalization, and only 26% opposed. It's safe to say Taiwan is a bit more progressive than China. The mayor of Taipei participated in Asia's largest gay pride parade. It's coming. Just a matter of when.

[B-side]

No, it wouldn't be. Those marriages would be in legal limbo. Without DOMA, states could still refuse to recognize marriages from any other state. Because there would be no federal law prohibiting that.

I tried to clarify that by saying "rule against it entirely", which would infer the reversal of a national ban and de facto legalization that states would be forced to comply with. States aren't allowed to segregate their schools anymore due to SCOTUS rulings. The same would apply here. This wouldn't mean that all churches would be forced to perform them, but they would legally be able to marry. In terms of what's actually happening right now in the US, I foresee them overturning DOMA, but not Prop 8. They may leave that decision to the lower court, which already ruled it unconstitutional. Overturning DOMA is a step in the right direction, though its very existence embarrasses me as a citizen of what is supposedly the best and freest country on the planet.

[Dukefrukem]

Two-men-hack-soldier-wearing-Help-Heroes-T-shirt.................

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...or-attack.html

[Irish]

So the two are not as closely tied as you seem to believe, and countries are perfectly capable of reviewing both issues within a short time period.

No, you misunderstand. You seem to believe that people have unlimited time and attention to debate serious social issues and that laws are enacted by rational actors. People don't work that way, and real world politics never operate that easily. If either did, we'd be living in some post-scarcity Star Trekian utopia by now.

Remember six months ago? Big outcry over guns. Lots of public support for federal bans. Lots of headlines. Lots of lawmakers promising to take swift action. You don't here about that so much any more. No federal law has been passed. Why? Because other issues become more immediate and more pressing. People grow tired of endless rhetorical debates. Their attention shifts elsewhere.

Passing a gay marriage law and an abortion law in the same half decade would represent enormous social change for any one country.

Tackling one means they probably won't have the energy to take on the other anytime soon.

Other factoids:

- When I said France was secular, I meant in ways that are entirely different from what you imagine living in the US. There's a process to getting married in France in which the government is deeply involved (they even give you a little booklet for your new family). Culturally, that's very different.

- Argentines identify as Catholic in large numbers, but according to the World Factbook, only 20% are actually practicing. So what does that tell you, across a generation or two?

- The Irish Constitutional Convention has the same influence as the Star Wars morons spamming whitehouse.gov. Which is to say: None. This fact seems to be lost on you.

- Taiwan had one marriage. One. At a Buddhist temple. Not sure that was legal in the eyes of the state. But I'd caution making projections about the social mores of Asian countries. They vary widely even across short distances, and can often be deeply surprising.

[B-side]

- Argentines identify as Catholic in large numbers, but according to the World Factbook, only 20% are actually practicing. So what does that tell you, across a generation or two?

Practicing meaning they attend church regularly. Church attendance is not necessary to maintain Catholic ideology.

- The Irish Constitutional Convention has the same influence as the Star Wars morons spamming whitehouse.gov. Which is to say: None. This fact seems to be lost on you.

No, it doesn't. The US government is only obliged to give a short written response to an online petition that gets something like 150,000 signatures, and even that doesn't mean it'll be even mentioned in congress. The Irish Constitutional Convention is comprised of a combination of actual lawmakers and citizens, formed by the government for the purpose of prioritizing and gauging public desires. A 79% approval of gay marriage is an insanely huge majority. Not even that many people can agree that evolution is real. It is absolutely significant.

- Taiwan had one marriage. One. At a Buddhist temple. Not sure that was legal in the eyes of the state. But I'd caution making projections about the social mores of Asian countries. They vary widely even across short distances, and can often be deeply surprising.

Taiwan will be the first Asian country to legalize it, that I can almost guarantee. South Korea is probably a bit more progressive in most ways, but I don't think their LGBT community is as outspoken, so it'll likely remain a dead issue there for the foreseeable future. Of the countries I predicted will legalize it in the near future, Taiwan was the longest shot, but I feel it's a very strong possibility. Let's keep in mind that both Nepal and Vietnam are also considering the issue. I'd better understand your opposition if I'd included Vietnam.:P

Coincidentally, Nepal has actually recently passed major LGBT legislation, granting them equal protection under the law and the government has agreed to issue third gender documents. Gay marriage is on the docket, but they don't seem to wanna touch it yet. Vietnam has delayed its decision until next year, but there's reason to be hopeful:

Vietnam's burgeoning gay rights movement got a major boost recently when the country's Ministry of Health came out in support of legalizing same-sex marriage. At a hearing to discuss marriage law reforms on April 16 in Hanoi, deputy minister of health Nguyen Viet Tien proposed that same-sex marriage be made legal immediately: "As human beings, homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else to live, eat, love, and be loved," he said, according to local media.

Surprisingly tender language from a government functionary--but then, much about the LGBT community in Vietnam defies expectations. Chastised for its human rights record and near the bottom of international surveys of press freedom and government corruption, Vietnam may well become the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage. Lawmakers have been actively reviewing the issue since July of last year. In addition to the health minister's statement, several other provincial governments and unions have publically expressed support for either full marriage rights or some form of legal recognition of same-sex partnerships.

[B-side]

Syrian opposition is currently struggling to form a broad coalition. Some want a peaceful solution in which Assad is a part, others refuse. Some parties want more representation. Russia says Assad will be sending government agents to take part in peace talks in Geneva. Not going to do a whole lot of good without a broad opposition coalition. I can't say I blame many of them for refusing to be a part of a solution that involves Assad not being imprisoned, but if they really want a better future for the country and an end to the violence, they need to suck it up and let the process play out. I would hope he'd be imprisoned even if he took part in the peace talks, but that doesn't seem likely. It's more likely that if an agreement is reached, he'll stay and try to retain power by proxy or go into exile in Russia.

[Raiders]

Why you should never kill yourself by jumping out of a building in a populated area... asshole...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/world/...ide/index.html