Germany and Japan were fascist states that went on the offensive, and both were forced into total capitulation followed by extensive programmes to uproot the fascist elements from their societies, paired with programmes to help rebuild.

Syria was primarily fighting a civil war against a dictator, not against the US and Israel.

In this case, Iran was attacked and its spiritual leader was assassinated. And as much as we dislike that guy, many Iranians did like him. Iran was then heavily bombed, including what appear to be civilian targets. There are no clear signs of widespread civil unrest that could topple the regime entirely yet.

I don't see this ending well anytime soon.

I used to just call my mom.

As it says in that article, the hush money payments are strictly rumours. First Elisabeth supposedly did it, then Charles suddenly got a role in it too. The only source appears to be an anti-monarchy group, so not sure exactly how reliable that is (afaik the Daily Telegraph and the Sun published the accusations, and we all know how reliable they are).

We do know for a fact Charles stripped Andrew of his remaining royal duties, fully cut the money he receives from the monarchy (no wage and no money for protection anymore) and is trying to get him out of his current home, but apparently there's legal reasons making that difficult to do. He's a lot harder on Andrew than Elisabeth was.

And while he used to be quite political before he became king, he mostly stopped after he was coronated. That, as far as I know, got him more critique, because he mostly lobbied in favour of green policies against climate change.

It's how elections aren't supposed to work, but it is how they work in the US. If you don't vote in favour of one candidate, it works out to a half-vote for the other candidate. It's the inevitable reality of a two-party system, which sucks ass, but it's still there and voters are still responsible for how they choose to deal with it.

Not voting for Harris means realising a Trump victory. It's just how it works in the US, and no amount of principled ideas can ignore the mathematical reality of the US electoral system.

Also, I don't buy into the idea that voters are powerless sheeple. Organize, protest, strike, options a' plenty. But Americans are apathetic and don't care enough to realise actual change. And it's clearly possible, given the track record of several leading human rights activists in the US. But it is hard, and people don't even bother trying something if it looks hard.

I haven't found a story that doesn't use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadn't responded.

So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the mom's side of the ordeal.

Virality and outrage don't make a story more accurate.

We don't know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We don't know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem "off" in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?

Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?

I'll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the child's safety.

I'm surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don't think I've ever had it crash on me.

Trump is currently > 1,5 million votes behind his 2020 numbers with >99% counted almost everywhere. I don't think he has a chance of getting even close to Biden's numbers, and beating his 2020 numbers seems unlikely at the moment.

The Democrats were in power for 4 years and accomplished almost nothing while the lives of ordinary people got worse.

As much as I don't like the dems, this is too harsh on Biden. Biden inherited a weak economy from Trump, which saw worldwide inflation. That inflation is now back down to normal levels. Biden also repeatedly forgave tranches of student loans, started the process to declassify marijuana, tried to increase minimum wage but was blocked by DINOs, did roll back several abortion bans and managed to constitutionally protect the right to abortion in several states.

Biden wasn't close to perfect. He wasn't hard enough on Netanyahu, opting to express frustrations with him privately rather than through policy, because being pro-Israel is a popular view in the US. And he started claiming victory once inflation was back down, but well before people were compensated for their loss in purchasing power.

Biden was an OK president. Better than Trump anyway. But their election strategy was terrible and they really should have focused on what they could offer the working class rather than focus on what Trump would offer.

Elected judges really isn't all that common in the world. To me (Dutchman), electing judges/sheriffs sounds wild. Police does their own hiring, same goes for the judicial system. Judges decide who gets to be a high court judge, there's no politics involved at all. That to me sounds like a massive violation of the trias politica.

Putting Trump in charge doesn't hold Democrats accountable. It would move them further to the right, which is the exact opposite of you want. They don't care about disinterested non-voters, they only care about courting those that do show up to vote.

Change needs to come from within. Organize within the DNC. Primary their candidates. That's how you get people like AOC elected. Once the primaries are over, there's no shot at moving them further left.

Meanwhile, Ukraine lost its sovereignty back in 2014 when a democratically elected government was overthrown in a western backed coup. Painting this as Ukraine freely choosing to associate with NATO is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

You are ignorant of the facts. The democratically elected Ukrainian parliament adopted a treaty for closer association with the EU, which Yanukovich tried to block. After sending snipers to fire at protestors against his deeply unpopular decision, the Ukrainian parliament voted by a large majority to remove Yanukovich from his post. There is no evidence of Western involvement here, and the only nation that spoke of a "coup" was Russia, as Putin lost his ally in Yanukovich. All of this happened through democratic votes, by a democratically elected governing body.

And one of the first things the interim government did? Hold new elections. How did Putin respond? By sending in troops and illegally occupying Crimea. And in Donetsk and Luhansk the pro-Russian separatists tried everything to disrupt the elections and deprive the Ukrainians there of their democratic right to vote.

Had Yanukovich decided not to send in snipers, the protests would have happened without bloodshed. Had Putin decided not to send in troops, there would not have been bloodshed. Every single time the decision to use violence was taken by Putin or one of his allies.

You're an ideologue regurgitating propaganda you've memorized

Rich coming from someone who only regurgitates Russian talking points verbatim.