Fascism isn’t about logic or argument though; it’s about constantly defining and redefining the characteristics of the in-group so you can blame, persecute and kill those you exclude from it.
The Roman empire had at least 7 fictional dying-and-rising gods, Jesus was only one of them. How about a display to Osiris, he was the god of multiple stuff including agriculture. Aren’t crops more important than just about anything else? I demand an Osiris nativity scene!
Kevin Wallace has been showing Trump a series of agreements for loans, which state his business is required to maintain a certain net worth and that his financial statements are “true and correct”.
The documents relate to properties like his hotels in DC and Chicago, and all bear Trump’s signature. By signing those documents, Trump was agreeing to those terms.
We’re getting into the weeds now, but also heading towards the crux of the attorney general’s argument - that Trump submitted misleading financial information to banks to secure favourable loans.
One thing that the average person may not be aware of: knowingly signing a bank document that has false information is punishable by 2 years in federal prison. It’s not punished often, usually bank employees who steal money (and sign documents with incorrect totals) and scam business owners (if you say you run a barbershop to get Covid relief funds, but don’t really have one).
This isn’t a criminal trial but he’s clearly using tactics that scammers use.
It’s a very one-sided genocide. It’s just plain ridiculous to equate the two sides when it was Zionists who stormed the Arab mandate in 1947, Zionists (and later, Israel) who created hundreds of thousands of refugees with millions still stuck in miserable camps on the borders, Israel who has kept Palestinians under brutal occupation and blockade since 1967, and Israel who bombs densely populated cities with fighter jets while the brand new Hamas air force is using hang-gliders powered by fans.
It’s such a difficult thing to explain to people whose primary exposure to the conflict is through the Western media but these accounts, by two Palestinian and Israeli non-violent activists, are well worth a read. Unfortunately I can’t find the original transcripts so it’s a google books extract and is missing some of George’s testimony.
It’s not a suffering Olympics. Yes, the history is tumultuous, and yes, the State of Israel has more than likely caused way more suffering to Palestinians than Hamas has to Israelis. But that’s besides the point. The point is, civilians on both sides are now paying the price. No one wants to get shot at or bombed, and support for either side’s civilian population is NOT tacit support of the militants of the opposite side.
There has been a lot of debate on this. Is it cruel and unusaul punishments. Have the russiand done things so bad to deserve burger king. only time will tell.
Selenskyj was right: Prigozhin will be dead after two months. And he isn’t the only hardliner. I think within the last month six out of ten of the hardest hardliners fell out of the window. Or out of the sky.
Seems like Putin is currently liquidating the hardliners so there will be no negative feed back when he ends his “special operation” in a couple of weeks. Message at home will be: Wow, we did great, nobody objects and the world is in awe! And who disagrees will find an open window to jump through…
I am not saying he is ending it. I say he will try to prepare to end it without getting removed from power, to get away with a black eye. He might offer some sort of shady deal which Ukraine rightfully will reject. And finally he will end the operation, not getting most of his demands. But as he had all his hardliners removed he can still claim whatever he wants. Because not the winner but the person in charge decides what the truth is.
These papers and the people who write them truly are insane. I had the English version of the paper through my door the other week and you would think it’s satire It’s so ridiculous.
These far-right loony circle-jerks would be fascinating if they weren’t so troubling.
The authors wish to extend their gratitude to the individuals and organisations who supported this research by providing concrete feedback for revisions on the report, offering suggestions and advice at the planning stages, and offering ongoing collaborative and moral support while conducting this research: Elise Anderson, Campaign for Uyghurs, Freedom House, Tim Grose, Ondřej Klimeš, Julie Millsap, David O’Brien, the Rights Practice, Radio Free Asia, Isabella Rodriguez, David Stroup, Hannah Theaker, Emily Upson, the Uyghur Human Rights Project, the Uyghur Transitional Justice Database, the World Uyghur Congress, the Xinjiang Documentation Project, the Xinjiang Victims’ Database, and Adrian Zenz.
This is so key to propaganda. When researchers do a study on 58 people, you can barely claim you have a good representation of the population. And even in that case, if they are good, high quality researchers, they aren’t pushing any opinion, just stating facts. It’s just that 58 people can’t represent the population well, It’s just a starting point.
Now if we’re talking about an opinion and not just stated facts, 58 people is hardly representative, easy to manipulate, especially when you don’t have to cite specifics, just conclusion.
Okay, let’s assume these are facts. 58 people were threatened, etc. This is still propaganda. Opinion, and interpretation can push the conversation in one direction or the other very heavily.
For example, let’s draw a comparison to a system that people find more familiar (For westerners, at least), such as the united states police system or the FBI. How many US citizens are threatened to stop talking when pushing the limits of conversation publicly (Say, about calling out the inhumane treatment of others by the US military)? How many people have talked publicly about being approached by the FBI, or said they can’t comment on their interactions with the FBI, or of some private corporation that paid them off to keep their mouths shut about some insider deal, money laundering, or underage sex scandal? Governments and even private citizens coming after people who are talking shit publicly happens in capitalist states all the time.
And that’s just taking into account regular people who live in western countries. How about an even more direct comparison? The Uyghurs are Muslims that participated in terrorism in China, but the United States had Muslim terrorists of their own, what did they do? en.wikipedia.org/…/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_… You can find all kinds of resources about the human rights violations that the united states participated in against the muslin people, even in western sources such as wikipidia, and others amnesty.org/…/iraq-20-years-since-the-us-led-coal… have lots and lots of facts surrounding this.
“rules for thee, but not for me” comes to mind.
Sorry didn’t mean to unload on you. I’m vehemently agreeing!
I don’t think this changes thing. Not for me at least. He’s had at least a dozen other people accuse him - including people that don’t need his money or notoriety. And while he was cleared of criminal wrong doing in the Anthony Rapp case, I don’t think he ever denied making an advance on a 14 year old boy. Just that he “didn’t remember it” - which hardly matters. I don’t care how drunk I get. I’m not accidentally going to hit on children.
That’s kind of the point. We live in a system that is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”. Not because people who commit crimes should get away with them, but because the opposite system would be completely untenable. How exactly is he supposed to prove that he is innocent? I don’t care how sure anyone is that he did it. Prove it, or by our legal standard, he must be considered innocent.
If you want to live in a society where accusation is tantamount to fact, you’re going to regret it as soon as anyone says anything about you.
Your conflating the legal system with greater society. He’s not in jail or paying a settlement because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him in court. The rest of society is not bound by these same restrictions and are free to pass judgment as they please.
I wouldn’t say accusations are tantamount to fact, but when you get dozens of people making the same accusation, about a crime that’s difficult to prosecute and convict because of the nature of the crime, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Are you not also passing judgement on the accusers here? You’re essentially calling them all liars who are guilty of making false reports. Both sides can’t be “innocent” here.
They were responding to a comment about the legal system and problems with prosecuting SA cases, so of course they are going to be discussing that over the wider social implications.
I don’t know why you are jumping to conclusions here. The point they made about the legal system is extremely valid. As a survivor of CSA myself it’s something I confront in my mind every single day, but they are right: the opposite method would be horrific.
I mean these types of comments come from the same crowd that chants “eat the rich” at every opportunity, without considering that, for the vast majority of the world, they are the rich and henceforth deserving of being “eaten”
She can appeal still, and they are doing it as an incentive for her to return 27b. I imagine she will attempt to return a large portion, appeal and then just be given life in prison.
The legal team that didn’t bother to cross examine their own client after he testified for the prosecutor? I think they know.
Consider that for a moment. Trump himself just testified ONLY for the plaintiff. His own lawyers had nothing for him to answer at all.
They could have asked him anything like: “explain how it’s someone else that’s responsible for this” or “explain in detail how this is a witch hunt.” Literally anything.
bbc.co.uk
Top