Because the law deals with intent. The intent for a 12 year old skiddie with a ddos box is to harm someone else's internet. the intent of big scrapers is to collect data. if you want to make the latter illegal then vote for that instead of loading it with the normative baggage of the former.
It's the same problem as why Occupy Wallstreet fell apart: bunch of losers who don't understand the system screech about the system. because they don't understand it, they can't offer any meaningful dialogue about how to fix it beyond screeching.
GCP's support is abysmal. Our assigned customer support agent has changed 3 times in as many months. it's really a dice roll if our quota increase requests are even acknowledged or we can get clarification on undocumented system limitations.
...what? What does the UN have to do with war crimes lol. And why would the US care about war crimes we literally aren't signatory to the Rome statute. how could your comment get so many things wrong in so little text.
And while the US is a member of the UN and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (not the ICC), as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it also has the power to unilaterally veto any enforcement action (as do China, France, Russia, and the UK).
Ok? The ICC prosecutes war crimes in complementarity. The ICJ does not. Not sure what UN Security Council has to do with anything? I can't tell if this is AI. Add to your slop context you're probably thinking of IHL.
What you are leaving out is that governments can choose whether the ICC definition of warcrime applies to their territory. Iran has chosen that the Rome treaty, and the ICC, does not apply to Iran. It has even used this fact to request the ICC drop cases against them.
We all know why: 99.99% of warcrimes on Iranian territory were committed by Iran's islamist regime.
So Rome statute warcrimes are a legal impossibility in Iran. The Rome statute, that law and that definition of warcrime does not apply to anything happening in Iran.
You do recognize the contradiction saying Rome Statute has nothing to do with war crimes, then saying Rome Statute is how you prosecute war crimes right?
True yeah. but uh anyway what about HILLARYS EMAILS we need to hear about those for the next 4 decades (no convictions despite "Lock Her Up" slogans for 5 years)
you mean best selling children's book author Kash Patel who is desperately trying to scrub the internet of his music video[0] revising the Jan 6 insurrection
If the politicians are bought out by evil DoorDash's lobbying, why don't the voters just vote the politicians out? Do you have any evidence of a politician voting against their constituents' interests for personal gain?
Ignoring the easy second line, the answer to the first line is: we have two political parties in the US. What if neither are doing what the voters want?
Then people should stop being dumbfucks and engage in local (which are frequently non-partisan) and state elections and primaries, and stop pretending that "the president didn't fix everything and make this a socialist utopia, so both parties suck" is a useful or vaguely intelligent criticism.
> The people buying groceries know that things are more expensive.
This isn't born out in polling data. Grocery store prices went from being all anyone talked about to magically solved January 20, 2025. If only Biden had pressed the magic "solve inflation" button
You can't write rules against bad actors. There will always be some legal loophole a bad president can invent to exploit. if not for administrative warrants we would see some other creative (read: illegal) use of executive power.
The only option is to not elect someone that doesn't respect rule of law. And since I know some enlightened "centrist" will play the both sides game: What's 1 thing any previous president has done equivalent to violating posse comitatus.
I strongly disagree. You should always write rules under the assumption it will get in the hands of the worst people. If there is a 'become god-emperor' lever in your supposedly democratic government system then it is a shitty system.
Maybe so but what here really would've prevented this? The information involved is necessarily public: bank details and credit card numbers need to be shared otherwise why have them?
Writing a rule that says the government can't do this is just the government writing a rule it can simply remove it ignore when inconvenient.
The banking information belongs to the account holder and the bank. Google knows it by coincidence but should not share it because it isn’t theirs. If the government wants to know my banking details they can ask my bank. If they can’t figure out who my bank is they should get better at investigating. This approach is just exploiting Google’s wide reach.
Cool. Yeah but the topic is that it's currently not working when you have a president that doesn't want to respect rule of law.
Just like Roberts schizo-rambling about the federalist papers and inventing new terms like "Core constitutional powers" while not addressing any of the dissents. Roberts pens in that the president gets broad immunity for "core" (defined nowhere) powers and ignores the public's interest in not having a criminal president.
Originalists like senile Roberts must have forgot the framers were literally escaping a monarchy with no judicial accountability. Maybe him and Alito can figure out the mental gymnastics needed to ask his wife to take down the stop-the-steal flag outside his house.
must be pretty upsetting that sitting president Trump has tens of billions in 2 dark money shitcoins and owns a majority stake in crypto company World Liberty Financial. Just 0.001% of the total sum Hunter Biden was allegedly corrupt over (no evidence).
The problem in America is that more than half the country does not live in a shared factual reality. Like:
* Jan 6 was a fedsurrection, and also simultaneously all innocent people that needed pardoning (Pardoning the feds?)
* World Liberty Financial receiving billions selling out American interests worldwide? Never heard of this but Burisma was worse!
* The Raffensperger call was no big deal there were attorneys on that call. Trump's personal (now disbarred) attorneys, of course, not there to represent America's interests but how's that the big deal?
* Also who's Raffensperger? But did you see those boxes under the table! What do you mean the clip is longer than 6 seconds that's all I saw on the infinity scrolling apps.
There is one reality that's undeniable: that political donations by individuals are strictly monitored and can land you in jail if violated, but PAC money is untraceable and unlimited. That fact alone has led to stacking the deck in favor of lobbyists and monied interests at the expense of the electorate and national institutions.
I assume you mean Citizens United v FEC. Should they not have been allowed to release their documentary? Its not an easy question and there's a reason none of the dissents directly address Roberts' opinion.
I’m not a lawyer and won’t address the merits or lack thereof of the ruling on the particulars of the case. The effect of the ruling was a sweeping change in money in politics. It effectively legalized an oligarchic take over of governance. It’s a fact that money and advertising largely determine outcomes in battleground races. Tipping those races, along with the structural power imbalance in federal politics, means that control of the government is relatively easy and cheap.
I don't know if you read your own source but it's incredibly unconvincing "research" slop. In their "case study" they just point to a particular race and the money the candidates received and infer it's bad.
No analysis if the politician was acting against their constituents interests... Pretty embarrassing paper to put their name on. I can see why there's no coauthors.
Also they conflate political ad spending with issue awareness ad spending, which is a borderline malicious.
This is the infamous call where Trump, according to the recorded tapes, tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results by demanding that Raffensperger "find 11,780 votes".
It's the same problem as why Occupy Wallstreet fell apart: bunch of losers who don't understand the system screech about the system. because they don't understand it, they can't offer any meaningful dialogue about how to fix it beyond screeching.
reply