Not Australian, but looking through the proposal, it seemed pretty basic. It’s pretty sad that even a relatively toothless measure like this couldn’t pass. Though I’m definitely not throwing stones, I’m in America.
And, frankly, without conservatives in general. They’re an existential threat, starting from the fact that they’re opposed to doing anything about climate change (well anything that doesn’t make it worse, anyhow), not to mention that a nontrivial percentage of them would love to see me and others like me murdered because of our gender identity
The article opens with “what about America’s response to 9/11?”. JFC, what a shitty justification. America was clearly wrong to war crime all over Iraq just as Israel is in the wrong for warcriming all over Palestine. I refuse to “both sides” imperialists and their victims. Frankly, “both sides” is the trap one should avoid.
Arguable, Iraq was Bush Jr. finishing what his father started in the late 80s. It may well have happened even without 9/11. Afghanistan however was a direct consequence of 9/11, and is a more apt metaphor for what Israel is doing now.
There's no point raising a metaphor in the first place. A metaphor doesn't justify anything. It's just a rhetorical tool that is supposed to help deliver a point. However, all it does in this instance is mess and draw confusion.
The way Israel has been politically crippling itself the last couple of weeks is crazy. Whatever the outcome of this war, they already lost a lot of face with many nations world over, I wonder how this will affect them going forward.
I’m all for voting in younger representatives but I would never in a million years vote for a 22 year old. Or a racist for that matter. But the most shocking part to me is his age. Like, 22 year olds have not been alive long enough to develop any kind of meaningful wisdom. I’m only 36 so my wisdom is only just developing and I look back on all the 22 year olds I knew when I was 22 and holy shit do not put any of those people in charge of important decisions.
He’s not elected directly, but via a list. That is, the party has a list of candidates and according to the number of seats they get in the election, the candidates fill in the seats.
Since the AfD was kind of on a rise and probably got more seats than candidates, they’ll put almost whoever on this list.
Interesting. My point still stands though. It’s crazy that a party would have a 22 year old on said list, and that anyone would support a party that has a list with 22 year olds on it.
Have looked into the AfD? They’re basically a party of rightwing self-victimizers, frustrated lowlifes and downright nazis. Their voters don’t care about facts or reality. Case in point: the current head of the party is a lesbian, married to an Indonesian woman living in Switzerland. This entire party is a contradiction in itself.
If you’re from the US, they’re maybe comparable to the MAGA crowd.
At this point I suspect it's a new scam. These people are clearly deliberately not paying their lawyers. Once the lawyers are done, they move on to new ones.
I'm wondering whether the lawyers are complicit – I guess not. But I honestly have no idea whether Trump & co. are generating profits through this scheme.
Edit: so, one way to establish a scam in this way is for the lawyers to demonstrate how they'd defend other conservatives. By defending people around Trump, these lawyers, for example, might be introduced to potential conservative clients. When they find enough clients they call it a day, and cancel the contract with the powerful people who don't pay them.
So maybe they are only performing token work at the moment? Handing in documents late, not bothering to read evidence etc
That is brilliant actually.
Most lawyers do the minimum work possible anyhow in my experience — have ditched four so far.
The very first one failed to write the letter he promised and yet billed me for our one hour meeting (where he failed to disclose costs). I naively thought he was an anomaly. I did win my case with my fifth lawyer eventually.
I don’t understand why in each case the BBC shows a pair of images: IDF map pinpointing where to move to and a photo of the aftermath.
Why does BBC not also show a map of where the strike occurred — also as a pinpoint?
Some of these warnings were accompanied by maps with arrows pointing to vaguely defined areas to move towards.
IDF showed a pinpoint. Technically the area is indeed ill defined (how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?).
IDF might now say they struck near the pinpoint not at the pinpoint. They may have sleazily given themselves wiggle room. Just how close they struck is important though.
The BBC “Verify” team failed to show us so that we can verify for ourselves. We cannot trust BBC after the hospital misreporting nor can we trust the warring parties.
After closely following the Ukrainian War and learning all the nuances and history in that…I just don’t have the energy or time to do the same about a whole new conflict.
Wait until you hear about Macron’s travel to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to sign economic agreements… just like the EU did with Ukraine right before 2014… only this time, next week there’s going to be a new sanctions package against Russia.
Did I mention Kazakhstan borders with both Russia and China, Russia already has a recent history of “helping” a pro-Russia government stay in power by sending in troops to shoot against civilians, and China would love to build a railway through Kazakhstan and Ukraine right to the EU… with just a tiny bit of Russia lying in the way north of Georgia?
It’s really just a video of Netanyahu saying the words himself. It’s not interpreted or analysed by the website. Don’t see how that can be very biased.
I watched it a second time to be sure. While the voiceover doesn’t say “Holy War” he does cite religion and sounds like religious radicals dog-whistle.
There’s good reasons to be critical of Netanyahu government, but I’d still suggest seeking better sources.
It may indeed be, I’m not familiar with Middle East Monitor, but Media Bias/Fact Check are themselves rather infamously biased towards the American right wing. For example, they list the New York Times as nearly as left-biased as their scale goes, despite that the Times has largely taken the Republican party line on a number of issues, such as queer rights (their deceptive coverage of trans rights has been a large part of the current moral panic, and has led to multiple open lettersof protest). The Times was even instrumental in elevating Trump to the presidency with their incredibly dubious decision to give Comey’s procedural memo front page placement and a misleading headline mere days before the election — a choice that Nate Silver has said was possibly deciding on the election. The Guardian is also listed as left-center despite even more extreme transphobic editorial decisions than even the Times.
Similarly, they list MSNBC as far-left, despite them having Republican-led shows and frequent Republican guests. I’ll definitely agree there’s some degree to which they’re on the left, but it’s pretty minor all told. The idea that they’re far left is just ridiculous, and one that only makes sense from the perspective of America’s right-wing culture.
At the same time, they list Wall Street Journal as mostly credible, something that just isn’t a serious take on media credibility.
(Edited to add: a lot of this comes down to the very strong bias in American media towards the “both sides” idea that if two sources disagree, the truth must be in the middle. That bias is especially clear in discussions of climate change, but it’s also prevalent in discussions of other political issues more generally.)
As usual, our Overton window is all that matters to people in the states. There’s some active debate about how much longer centralized media control in all legacy formats will mean the level of control the phrase implies, but until that shifts, Overton is staying put.
Nah, news organizations aren't internet echo chamber.
I mean, if they write dozens of opinions a day, news organizations labeled center-left or even left-leaning have to go to the other side sometimes. If not, they're just propaganda machines.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.