That may be true but for those literally being threatened with war it would be stupid not to act on the threats anyway. And your speculation that it’s a smoke screen sounds really dismissive the countries that now have to accept that the US might be or become the greatest security threat in decades.

The first one’s probably won’t be. But I don’t think it’s too far off. I expect the first ones to be some random non white people who commited some indefensible crimes, or at least are accused of doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go for people with terrorism charges so the next batch can be accused of terrorism as well to make the leap seem smaller. That they now define vandalism against tesla as terrorism will just help murky the waters to make the life sentence without judge or jury seem more palatable than it is every step of the way.

As far as I remember it was a two part protection. Any official act, no matter the intent, is protected. So as one dissenting justice pointed out, ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival could be protected as it falls within the powers of the president to direct the military. Besides that, any criminal action outside of that overly broad protection still cannot be prosecuted using any evidence that comes from the actions of the president in their capacity as such. So if the president has a phone call logged in official records in which they outline or perform an illegal act, those logs will be inadmissible in court, only evidence reltaed to the president as a private individual is admissible. The stormy daniels case had to throw out evidence because of this, despite being related to crimes committed before the election even.

Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and working off of memory. I might misunderstand or misremember some of this.

We have something similar although only in certain dialects of danish. The following is a valid sentence meaning the island in the river: æ ø i æ å

Ø - the 27th letter of the danish alfabet
Ø - the danish word for island

Yeah I recognized the german as being equivalent to the danish bjørnetjeneste, which also means bear service or slightly more accurately a bear favor.

Trump has in short ordered all mentions of scientifically accurate information on gender and sexuality removed from government websites.

The South Schleswig Danish minority have been mentioned in every new year’s speech I can remember. It’s basically part of acknowledging everyone who feels ties to the kingdom of Denmark. Near the german border there is a danish minority in Germany and a german minority in Denmark. And to my understanding as someone not living near there it is a respected cultural thing on both sides. It is not something about laying claim to it. In this particular speech the very next sentence is about the king and queen feeling just what you quoted during their visit those places that year and how they are looking forward to visiting the Faroese islands. For context the king was crowned in 2024 so this was commentary on the first royal visit of the new reagents.

As others have pointed out they have valid grievances and good reason to want independence. As a dane I only learned about the non-consensual and secretive implantation of UID’s in women and girls that had been going on a few decades ago. Learning about that and other systemic issues they have dealt with I can not begrudge them wanting independence. Whether they seek it or decide to stay, I hope they have a brighter future ahead of them and that Denmark will support that as best we are able.

I get that non-violent crime has a specific meaning in law, but calling the selling of children, causing massive psychological damage non-violent really rubs me the wrong way. Not a criticism of you but of the system that conciders it non-violent just because it was done with the stroke of a pen instead of the wave of a gun.

They basically did the same thing the Satanic Temple often does. Use the rules republicans make thinking only they will benefit. When they are used by the other side as well it has a funny way of causing a reevaluation of if it should in fact be legal after all. My understanding is that CAH made a sort of parody of Musks trick although doing it in a slightly more careful way to make sure that any legal action against them would apply more broadly. I don’t think it’s good that vote buying is a thing, but equating the satirical protest campaign with the actual thing being pushed against is unfair in my opinion. You can argue if they go about it the right way or not but legitimizing the original offense by pointing out people cheered at the counter campaign opposing musk using the same tool and humor feels disingenuous.

I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.

Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?

How were they doing that? To me it seemed like their point was a distinction between all hostages and civilian ones being released. I don’t know if they are correct, but I cannot see how it in any way dehumanizes anyone.

Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.

Oh nice! :D

I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.

This sounds a lot like my reaction to questions in the test i got for autism (except it was writtwn so i just scribbled these thoughts out).
I don’t know if you are on the spectrum, but it sounds like the test giver would have been horrible at administering it to children on the spectrum either way.