Putin dismissed US warnings about a potential terror incident as 'blackmail' just 3 days before concert hall attack
In 2019, Ginsburg helped establish the award with the Opperman Foundation to celebrate “women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility.” The organization later opened the award to men, renaming the trophy as the Leadership Award while claiming to aim for gender equality.
Ah yes, because when I think of empathy and humility I definitely think of Musk and Murdock.
WTF are you even talking about? You keep using super vague phrases to try and argue that (and I'm just guessing here since I legitimately can't tell what you are trying to say) LGBTQ advocates are ignoring history?
What history are you pointing to? Why would that history matter in fields like medical science? Would the history of gender help us understand that some people identify as trans? Would it help us understand the best practices in helping them?
Was this all just a way to complain about "men" going into women's spaces?
Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else's pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it's like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.
From what I've previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn't work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn't do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don't know enough details to know, but it doesn't sound like they just simply didn't care or didn't store them properly.
States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else's pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It's not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it's been treated as a destruction of property. You don't have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.
The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won't change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it's laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.
They only get out on parole if the board (or whatever the UK's equivalent is) believes they have learned a lesson and are safe to reenter society. If not then they stay until the next board meeting. I have a hard time imagining they would get out after 20 years for murder without the board being pretty damn sure they are no longer a danger to society.
As gross and heinous as these crimes are, I will never favor life-without-parole or the death penalty for minors.
Ya. This only ends one of two ways, either Israel succeeds in killing /displacing the people of Gaza (West Bank and Golem Heights next) and fills it with people loyal to them, or they stop the occupation. Terrorist groups don't do well in stable, prosperous nations. If they really want Hamas and groups like them gone forever, they will have to take the winds out of their sails by letting the Palestinians have a real government with real control over itself. Even if they meet their stated goal of "destroying Hamas", it (or another similar but even more extreme) group will take over.
What finally made it click for me is that his supporters don't care about policy, outcomes, Trump's personal life, his many obvious failings, his hatred of them and things they claim to stand for, etc. . They only care about "hurting the right people." As long as Trump says Mexicans are rapists, antifa are terrorists, Democrats are evil, etc. , his supporters will fall on line. They view society as a zero-sum game, as a team sport. As long as "they" are hurting you must be doing better. It doesn't matter if the economy and everything do a nose dive as long as "they" get hurt by it more. It's politics of hate and vindictiveness.
But laws are interpreted by the courts so a law passed by Congress would still be subject to their interpretation. In fact, even rights outlined in Constitutional amendments are interpreted by the courts. The best option would have been a constitutional amendment that was as specific as possible. However,
A) a constitutional amendment was not needed and should not have been required. The right to abortion was already codified in law and had a large pile of case law backing it up. Should we try to pass amendments for all the unenumerated rights? Do we need a state convention every time the courts rule in a way that establishes a new right?
B) Even that would not have stopped a court that had already made up its mind decades ago. They could have ruled that the new amendment violated the old ones and was void. They could have ruled it only protected abortion in rare cases, or that states rights are more important and overrule the right to abortion.
C) a constitutional amendment was never going to pass to requirements to become law. It would require a Dem supermajority in both chambers or Dem control of 2/3rds of states which is impossible with current gerrymandering.
Fundamentally we are looking at a whole party that would break any rule, law, or norm as long as it lets them do what they want. Establishing more rules or laws just gives them more things to break. The only party at fault here is them.
It's comforting to imagine that people with insane views don't actually believe them because we'd like to think nobody could actually think like that. The problem is, they do. Lots of them. Just like "birds aren't real," it's easy to imagine no one actually believes that obvious troll but many do! It's the same tendency that leads us to picture Nazis as inhuman robots instead of actual people who believed that shit. The problem is that rosey view of humanity leaves us open for that shit to happen again.
The guy who is doing interviews now defending Israel even harder than Biden ever has? The guy who's most well known for being rabidly anti-vax?
I am obligated by my work to offer this to customers when they buy an HP printer and I make it really clear that it's a bad deal for most customers. There are some edge case examples, like a lady with a small business who always prints exactly like 3 pages a day. The other customers who agree to buy it are almost always the super old people who don't want to have to come to the store to get more ink. I think it's a shit program that should be scrapped entirely, but some people really don't care if it's a bad deal as long as they get the convenience. No different than 7-11 up charging shit because it's easier to buy it at the market down the street than the Walmart a few miles down the road.
Maybe you missed the everyone in the previous post. It doesn't matter if it's two people in the country (it's likely at least a million, that would be less than 0.3%), no one eligible should not be able to vote.
I think they meant "citizen*'s* arrest" as in "arrest of a citizen". Not a citizen doing the arrest, as in "citizens arrest" .
If you read the article, the author is not saying Trump winning the general election is an inevitability, but that him winning the nomination is inevitable and so is his rise to dictatorship if he wins the general. He never says Trump winning the general is guaranteed, and allows phrases that part as, "he could win the general". All of those things are true baring unforseen circumstances.
Also, honestly that sentence would have been a lot funnier not censored.
The Dems have moved a LOT in 50 years in almost every aspect. You think the Dems of 50 years ago would have even tried to forgive student loans? Hell, even in 2016 it was laughed out of the park. Believe it or not, the Dems have moved on their position with Israel, just not enough to be hugely noticeable. The biggest change has been Israel increasing moving further right and the Dems staying where they have been/very slightly moving.
In the past few weeks we've seen Biden go from "Ceasefire is off the table" to "We helped organize a humanitarian pause." They just announced a plan to block violent settlers from the States. It's not much, and certainly not enough, but to act like the Dems have not moved on anything in 50 years is a level of stupid I cannot abide. Hell, the Dems of 50 years ago passed DOMA.
Maybe... Just maybe, don't threaten to throw the whole country, including yourself, under the bus just because you can't completely change a country's position they'd had for over 50 years in 2 months.
then there's all the other stuff like student loans, the child tax credit
I see someone isn't following what is happening or how this works. The President, leader of the Dems, changed federal policy to forgive student loans (or at least a big chunk of them for a big chunk of the population) and it got struck down by the Supreme Court thanks to the other party. The Dems passed the child tax credit and then couldn't get it through the house to renew it because of the other party.
Generally voting for democrats on the federal level just means halting or slowing down the inevitable ratchet towards fashism, not actually improving things
Let's say that's true, it's objectively not but let's pretend it is. Isn't that still the obviously better option? How the fuck is fascism today better than fascism tomorrow?
Yes, because that worked out so well last time a block of Dems threw a fit and decided not to vote. The party definitely learned a lesson and would never do something like 2016 again, right?
It literally is crazy. It's psychotic to think that the party would change their mind about the system that holds them in power after another 4 years of Trump, assuming we even get to have a real election again at all. Project 2025 anyone? It's psychotic to think that all the harm that will come from another 4 years of Trump, now with a grudge, nothing left to lose, and a playbook of how to not be stopped is somehow worth the hope that Dems will change their mind. You know what made the party pick Biden in 2020? The four years of hell before it. You know what will guarantee a "moderate" Dem as the only option in perpetuity? Another 4 years of Trump. Allowing him to win doesn't move the party left, it moves them right to try and get people who actually fucking vote from the middle to move over. The closest we ever came to an actually left president was after 8 years of a moderate Dem.
There would be the same reaction if FB or Instagram or any other big platform was found to be allowing ads next to objectionable content (content the company in the ads would not want associated with their brand) AND that platform said that it wasn't an issue, they won't change policies to prevent it, and told them to go fuck themselves.
Twitter could absolutely have filters in place to prevent ads from showing up next to literal Nazi posts with a simple word list. The posts Media Matters showed were not subtle or underhanded, they were saying the quiet parts out loud. It would be trivial to prevent ads entirely from those posts, but then they'd lose ad space. It would mean less if this had happened with borderline posts or posts using coded language.
It reminds me a bit of the US intelligence saying that Russia was going to invade Ukraine and attempt to make it all the way to Kiev while Russia was adamant that it would never happen.
The other thing to note is that all countries have an "obligation to report" which requires them to report evidence of terror attacks to any county that would be the victim, even if they are a hostile nation. As much as "US bad" is true, it's frankly refreshing to see us do the right thing so publicly, even if it was only as a way to make Putin look bad.