Electing judges in the first place undermines trust in neutrality of the courts. Since it undermines neutrality of the courts. It makes judges make campaign promises they have to keep to not anger people and makes them indebted to their campaign financiers.
Like how is this supposed shocking new news just because someone spent finally even more money on a judicial election race. Word combination which shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Per the articles comments she takes the exact right approach to media owning “I don’t get involved”, hire good responsible editor, give enough resources to do even deep investigative stuff and leave journalists to do their job. Subscriptions follow from good credible journalism then.
Provide umbrella of “you can’t threaten the editor with firing or lawsuit”, since she won’t fire the editor and the company has enough resourcing to fight of law suits with good legal team.
Not like Mathias and Moritz Döpfner weren’t already a problem. So it isn’t much extra to add Thiel. The editorial line won’t change, since Döpfner have similar opinions to Thiel themselves.
Politicos problem isn’t Thiel investing in Axrl Springer media, it is them being part of Axel Springer media in the first place.
Good of him to notice, the campaign seems to be working then. Thus carry on and continue demonstrating and boycotting people.
Bold of you to assume he over ends up fully sober and doesn’t just take “corrective series” first thing next morning to make the hangover and withdrawal go away.
How can we actually use it?
We don’t.
I was being sarcastic.
The small problem of it not actually being intelligent and thus not being rationally reliable. Gonna fix it on the next release for sure. ;)
Which is exactly why people were “this is going to bite us in the behind”, when patriot act and so on was originally done and so on.
Way easier to change “who is terrorist”, than “give us authorization to do this new thing” in the first place.
Plus they forgot few key words “in certain specific ways”. I don’t think say for example all of USA women are going to lose the right to vote. Something about a constitutional amendment. People shouldn’t blanket compare to Gilded Age, Dark Age etc.
I’m sure they thought themselves clever. Yeah their specific comparison in actual article was on point and then they go ruin it by over generalizing in the headline and insert
Well that could mean anything between “she died of not immediately obvious medical reason, so cause of death inguiry is needed” to “she was murdered, we are investigating”. Heck to investigate “there is no external markers, but we don’t know is it medical stroke or a poisoning murder”.
So I would say, wait until they investigated and tell, if they suspect foul play before jumping to conclusions. Not that Israel isn’t capable and on choosing so willing, but sometimes people just suddenly die of medical causes without prior warning.
Aka FPTP wasting votes in most USA states since someone thought it great idea to issue electors as state size blocks. When Constitution gives each state right to decide ways of apportioning their awarded electors.
State starts awarding 3 democrat electors and 7 Republican electors and suddenly both parties care to entice voters to try to make it 2 and 8 or 4 and 6.
Doesn’t even take removing the electoral college. Just state deciding “state wide FPTP is stupid”, we are going to start using something more proportional.
Even in swing states it would still work, work better. Since there would be fight over is it 5 and 5 or 6 and 4.
Systemically nigh impossible due to spoilering effect, wasted votes, gerrymandering and so on under FPTP. Even then all would happen is the new party replacing on of the existing ones and still stuck with two party system.
YouTube, cgpgrey, animal Kingdom votes videos.
Always 50/50 because two party system, FPTP and electoral college.
I would also add that isn’t empty talk like “Well he said it once, non biggie”. That statement by POTUS itself drove the national policy other countries. When POTUS says “other nations you are with us or are our enemies”, that matters.
That is a signal the reverberates around with “do we dare to anger USA on this one”. The Afghan war partisipants list is long and contains some not so obvious participants often doing rather small token participations. Which I think is exactly “Well we have to show we are with USA”.
For example here in Finland in the after action report of Finnish participation in Afghanistan tells the reason wasn’t building peace, it wasn’t even combat experience. It was “coalition and alliance building” aka showing USA “we are with them”.
In the after action study one of the interviewed decision makers literally directly quoted:
Yhdysvallat sanoi 9/11 jälkeen: olette joko meidän kanssa tai meitä vastaan.”
United States said after 9/11: You are either with us or against us.
Right above explaining how it was 20 year long very unpopular operation caused losses and achieved nothing in Afghanistan, but hey the Finnish NATO application will go through with flying colors.
The whole time the media blitz was about “Helping and building peace in Afghanistan”. When in reality we went in because USA publicly extorted pretty all of west to show colors.
This isn’t only in Finland in other European after action reports have shown similar “We went in, because Bush publicly demanded show of loyalty”.
Since he was an idiot and gave a no reservations or conditions bid for the company. At way overpriced at that. The existing biard and owners must have been fainting from shock and glee.
No one sane ever gives no reservations and conditions bid. That is insanely stupid thing to do.
Twitter didn’t make Elon buy Twitter. Elon did that to himself. Under normal bid, absolutely he could back out by arguing one of the conditions his lawyers would have put in.
Either his lawyers were highly incompetent, he didn’t use them or he ignored their advice that it would be highly unusual and monumentally stupid to issue such bid while waiving ones right to have terms and conditions included. Well negotiate in terms and conditions. Since obviously otherside might refuse to accept the buying contract, if they don’t like the terms and conditions.
In this case all the judge did was looked at the bid contract and went “Mister Musk, you signed bid to buy with no terms and conditions. So you have to honor the bid.”
Like the one recent CEO saying the quiet part aloud by saying government should promote higher unemployment, since in the high employment environment employees aren’t desperate and have more demands costing him money. That employees arent feeling enough pain and despair in economy.
Well PESCO did get created. Denmark dropped their opt out from CSDP. Stuff like this moves slowly, specially upon there not being single hegemonic leader saying “We do this” and everyone else answering “Yes boss”. EU is herding catch and it makes everything move slowly.
However I would note… France has rule about no crosses or cross wearing in schools. So it isn’t like Islam is being singled out. Well this specific rule is about them, but France has very wide rule of “no religious clothing, items or symbols” in school and they don’t much pick sides. Jewish kids… No kippas, Protestants and Catholics, no crosses, Muslims, no head scrafs, no face veils, no religious robes. Sikhs, no turbans.
So it isn’t xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of “no religious symbols wearing”.
What one can say is, that it is highly anti-religious. However that isn’t same thing as xenophobic or say specifically antisemitic or islamophobic. Islamophobic would be “Muslim girls aren’t allowed to wear scarfs, but it’s okay for catholic girls to wear crosses”.
French government “doesn’t like” the local traditional majority religion either.
One absolutely can argue about “is it too much restriction of religious liberty in general”, however one can’t argue “well but this is about jews or muslims”. It isn’t. This specific rule about abayas is mostly a technocratic decision based on wider political decision of “we have principle of no religious displays in school”. It was decided “oh yeah, we missed this one religious clothing wearing/display. Add it to the long list of specified banned religious displays of all kinds”.
I’m sure, if member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster tried to walk to French school with colander on their head, the courts would rule "no colander hats either, that is religious display also. You can go join the Jewish and Sikhs on the club house of “France banned our religious hat” club.
Depends how deep the lines are. They have breached the first line at some points. However as per ukrainians, after the first line is the second line and so on. Russia knows how to make deep defences and anywhere, where they lose one line, they will adjust and start added more lines to the rear to compensate for the lost line. First line lost, second line is now first line, third line is second and so on and add the new Nth line, since the old Nth is now Nth-1 line.
It will be a slow slug and battering ram fest, unless Russian army morale breaks/ supplies exhaust and they run.
That is what juries are for. Judges are supposed to be the specialist technocrats of legal system. Juries are then for “feelings of the society” matters. Most importantly nobody has to campaign or owe anyone large sums of money to get into jury.