What is the both-sides in this case? Setting aside the question of trustworthyness, what trust would a deal require the Republicans to have. The only commitment I see the Dems making here is a singular vote at the beginning. If they don’t follow through on that vote, then the deal is off before Republicans give up anything.
The Dems need to trust Republicans/Trump because they make their concession first.
How the fuck is this actually permitted?
It’s not. Those messages are a blatant violation of a law known as the Hatch Act.
In theory, this is enforced by the office of special counsel, which is an independent federal agency. In practice, Trump fired the head of the OSC back in February, and appointed one of his cabinet officials to the role.
In theory, this was completely unlawful, as the OSC was setup by Congress post Watergate [0] specifically to be independent of the President. Indeed a lower court ruled as such; but was overturned on appeal. The problem is that the Supreme Court has recently embraced a view of near unlimited presidential power, including explicit rulings against the constitutionality of laws preventing the president from firing heads of independent agencies. [1].
The court also ruled that the president has near complete immunity to commit crimes (Trump v US 2024). That ruling gives the president literally complete immunity for “core” acts such as issuing pardons. So, he could pardon everyone involved.
In theory, the recourse here is impeachment. But there isn’t much stomach to impeach him again after his prior impeachments failed to remove him from office. Those impeachments being for: withholding military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn’t investigate the son of his political opponents; and directing a violent insurrection on January 6 to try and remain in power despite loosing the election.
[0] Where then president Nixon directed a break in of the headquarters of his political opponents.
[1] Although, I will note, the Court has made a point of clarifying that the Federal reserve is fine. Undoubtedly because they care about the amount of money they would loose in the economic carnage of that particular agency loosing independence.
You can fill out a form and send it to your HR/payroll department to adjust your withholdings at anytime, and they are supposed to do so no questions asked.
The employee not paying their income tax does not actually have an adverse impact on the employer, so they don’t care. Of course, the employee still has the legal obligation to pay; but breaking tax law is pretty inherent with tax protest.
I had a similar realization when studying undergrad linguistics.
One of the classes had us read Chomsky’s “Remarks on Nominalization” paper. The overwhelming sense I got from it was that the author did not understand X-Bar theory, despite knowing that Chomsky was the one who came up with it (and not realizing at the time that this paper was essentially Chomsky’s first paper on the subject).
I will also say that it is a credit to his writing that the paper still holds up pretty well; even if it spends an entire section coming up with bad answers to what was literally a syntax 201 homework assignment.
Also, it’s not like the food gangs steal is getting thrown into the sea, or smuggled into Egypt. It is getting eaten by people in Gaza.
When there is a shortage of food, the people with the guns eat first. That is not fair; but it is a waste of energy to be upset at those people instead of the people who made the political decision to have a food shortage.
Are you saying that Israel and the US acted in bad faith when they agreed to Hamas’s more limited counter offer; then pocketed the front loaded benefit of the hostage release before reneging on their half of the agreement?
That would be like agreeing to negotiate so your enemy is not prepared for a surprise bombing campaign. Or bombing the country that volunteered their territory to host negotiations because they were hosting your enemies negotiators.
Or claiming a desire to negotiate while killing the enemy negotiators.
The 20 point plan was never agreed to by anyone. Trump proposed it. Hamas agreed to release the hostages; surrender control of Gaza to a body of Palestinian technocrats.
Disarming was not part of the agreement.
The GOP has 53 senators. Under current Senate procedural rules, they need 60 votes to pass a budget.
Having said that, they only need 50 votes to change Senate procedural rules. However, for reasons I do not comprehend, Senators from both bodies have been surprisingly resistant to the idea of removing or adding exemptions to the 60 vote requirement.
The rapist pled guilty to 10 criminal counts. It’s not clear from the article how many victims that represents, as a single victim often results in multiple counts.
The 14 claimants come from a civil suit. The prosecutors have no say in who gets to sue. Further, the standard in a civil suit is propendrrance of evidence, which is far lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defendant is the school, so it is likely that both sides would try to throw the rapist under the bus.
It could, but fighting over it definitely will.
Even without any reprisal from the administration; the hypothetical lawsuit would be a very public affair. Nintendo would be inserting itself directly into the fight over US immigration law; and approximately no one in the US would see it as them defending their trademark rights. The anti-imigrant crowd would see it as a direct attack on Trump’s deportation efforts. The anti masked-officer-shoving-people-into-an-unmarked-van-and-sending-them-to-a-venezualan-contrantion-camp would also see it that way.
In contrast, if they do nothing, no one is going to look at that tweet and think that Nintendo was actually involved or approved of it.
The Pokemon’s only real asset at this point is their brand value. Being appropriated by an unpopular or controversial third party is a textbook example of why a company would want to use trademark law to protect their brand identity.
Having said that, I agree that the brand damage here is likely minimal; and certainly far less than the damage that getting into a legal fight with DHS would be.
China is the most populace country.
Israeli prime ministers.
David Ben Gurion 1948 - 1953. Born in Poland Moshe Sharett 1953-1955. Born in the Russian Empire (modern day Ukraine) David Ben Gurion 1955 - 1963. Born in Poland Levi Eshkol 1963 - 1969. Born in Russian Empire (modern day Ukraine) Yigal Allon 1969 (interim PM). Born in Palestine. Father born in Belarus. Maternal grandfather born in Ukraine. Golda Meir 1969 - 1974. Born in Russia. Yitzhak Rabin - 1992 - 1995. Born in Palestine. Father born in Ukraine. Mother born in Belarus. Shimon Peres - 1995 - 1996. Born in Poland. Benjamin Netanyahu 1996 - 1999. Born in Israel. Father born in Poland. Mother born in Palestine, but was a US citizen. Parents migrated from Lithuania to the US Ehud Barak 1999 - 2001 . Born in Palestine. Mother born in Poland. Father born in Lithuania. Ariel Sharon 2001 - 2006. Born in Palestine. Parents born in Russia. Ehud Olmert 2006 - 2009. Born in Palestine. Parents born in Ukraine and Russia. Benjamin Netanyahu - 2009 - 2021 Naftali Bennett 2021 - 2022. Born in Israel. Parents from the US Yair Lapid 2022. Born in Israel. Father born in Yugaslovia. Mother born in Israel. Maternal grandfather born in Transylvania. Benjamin Netanyahu 2022 - present
It is true that much of the Israeli population is middle eastern. However the political of Israel has been European from it’s founding until today.
The Nuremberg trials prosecuted only 24 people, all of whom were very high level Nazis. This number goes up to around 1700 if you count the subsequent tribunals also held at Nuremberg.
To a first approximation, the treatment of the rank and file was a polite agreement to politely ignore their involvement and move on.
We tried the collective punishment thing after world war 1 with the treaty of Versailles. The impact of that is still a subject of debate, but some historians draw a direct line from it to the Nazis.
There’s a couple of things going on.
The big one is just a massive selection bias in what people take pictures of. I know how to do a functional tie to restrain someone’s hands and feet. I do it plenty. But if there’s going to be pictures, I’m going to go for something more visually impressive.
There is also a constraint aspect in addition to the restraint. A common type of tie is a rope harness that goes around your torso without actually restraining any of your limbs. In addition to the aesthetic, it also squeezes you, which is kind of like wearing a hug.
As far as restraints go, it is surprisingly difficult to fully restrain arms/hands. A simple binding of the wrists leaves a lot of room to maneuver; and unless you are actively trying to pull your hands apart, barely feels like you are restrained at all. Finding a tie that really restraining and holds up [0] against all the wiggling your subject will do is difficult and tends to follow one of a few forms.
Other people don’t particularly care for the being tied part as much as the getting tied part. It can be a rather intimate experience with how close the top needs to be to your body, and the constant tension they maintain through the rope across your body.
And, of course, there are the type of people who are interested in the aesthetics. They tend to be the ones most interested in pictures.
[0] I almost include safe in this list. But given that the tie shown in this picture is probably the most popular, I cannot in good conscience say that.
If it’s not a backend error, you shouldn’t be throwing a 5xx error code. Since you are throwing a 500, you have a server bug; even if that bug is simply “sends incorrect error code”
I would argue that in your application, a wrong URL is a sever error. That error being improper handling of a client error.
I’m not a web dev, but had a similar problem with a niche compiler I used to develop.
We were pretty good at validating invariants at the mid and back-end. This meant that most user errors got reported as internal errors. Generally, these errors were good enough that users were able to get used to reading them and fix their code.
It was next to impossible to actually get users to file bugs about this. Our internal error messages started with a banner that read “THIS IS A BUG IN <compiler name>. PLEASE REPORT TO <support email address>”. Despite that, whenever we actually got a bug report, it would inevitably start with “I’m pretty sure this isn’t actually a bug in the compiler, but I can’t figure out what I am doing wrong in my code”.
Under current law, you would need to kill 22 people before replacements can be appointed. Possibly less if some of them are not constitutionally eligible to be president; but if it ever got to that point, I suspect we would ignore that provision.
Pulling this off is made even more difficult by both the heightened security given to everyone in the line of succession; and the fact that under our continuity of government plans, those people are deliberately never all in the same place at the same time.
Anything that could accomplish a full decapitation strike would likely require marshall law anyway, and would likely make the conditions for an election difficult.
Because the tarrifs end up is the cost of goods, which is counted as part of their price when calculating inflation.
If you subtract the direct effect of tarrifs on price, you’ll find that they were deflationary.