I'm aware of how it turned out, but, for the sake of clarity, I was speaking about a month prior to that outcome where the President of South Africa made it clear that he would now allow Putin to be arrested in the event that Putin chose to attend in person. Assuming his statements were straight forward, I even get the logical underpinnings of what he was saying here - it just seems an odd contrast for the SA government to turn around and champion the ICC months later. It's hard to take a country that recently publicly pragmatized away the need to uphold the legitimacy of ICC authority seriously when they're now using the ICC as a threat. Another country would be better to lead the charge here on behalf of the ICC.
Setting aside (but stating) my stance that Israel's policy of collective punishment against innocent Palestinian civilians is completely wrong and thus unconditional support from the US government for Israeli actions is also wrong - South Africa isn't a good faith actor here.
What was South Africa's official position last summer, as a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and thus a nation obligated to arrest those with an ICC arrest warrant that step foot in their territory, about honoring their obligation to execute an arrest on the ICC warrant issued for Putin for war crimes should he step foot in their territory? It almost seems like they're trying to distract from something or are maybe working towards mutual goals with some other entity (or entities) behind the scenes... Hmm.
Some mobile clients open the thumbnail version of images. If you instruct your client to open the image in a browser, you'll see that the url has thumbnail instructions appended to the end and those can be trimmed off of the end to show the full image.
John Kirby then further elaborated, saying "We have not seen the Israelis employing dodecahedron formations consisting of smaller Koch snowflake arrangements - if we see this kind of serious business, we'll need to assess our red line. We remain vigilant but have seen no evidence of them using this kind of major strategy."
I'm not convinced that Democrats wouldn't just happily go down down with the ship, so to speak, if they believed stopping the genocide was the singular issue that people's votes hinged upon. I don't know where that really leaves us all either, given how horrible the alternative is. If the Citizens United decision hadn't of happened we might have politicians that didn't act beholden to far-right Israelis, but, even considering the unfettered money poured into politics, it's ridiculous the hold that they seem to wield over both main parties in the US.
Perfect, thanks, the additional context of this applying to billionaires living off of loans based on assets held in the form of unrealized gains makes it make sense. I just wanted to make sure the quoted line wasn't implying something like lenders being required to accept realized gains being made from said loan in the future as collateral when granting the loan in the first place.
Australia has had mandatory voting for eligible voters (18+) for a long time. It works like this:
Prior to elections, the Australian Electoral Commission updates the electoral roll of all eligible voters. On election day, voters have their names crossed off the roll at whichever polling place they attend.
After the election, the electoral roll is cross-checked against voter records. Anyone who didn't vote and can't provide a valid reason (for example - illness, living remotely, religious beliefs) is issued a $20 fine by the AEC. If not paid, this can escalate to further fines of around $180 plus court costs if convicted.
Over 180,000 penalty notices were issued after the 2022 federal election to enforce the compulsory voting laws. While controversial to some, the system has maintained over 90% voter turnout in Australia for nearly a century.
A similar system would probably moderate political extremes in the US. I think any fine that is used as a means of enforcement needs to be scaled to the means of the individual being fined in order to not disproportionately target lower wealth individuals (but an elimination of the enforcement fine completely for the lower end of the wealth scale would maybe ironically result in less from that group voting and thus give them disproportionately lower representation in outcomes).
They will ban you for comments that are so inert it's impossible to even know what offended them, it's ridiculous.