He’s not running though? This is him changing his personal party choice for voting.

I have a couple of concerns with this.

The first being if some states are going to try to use this against any kids charged with being child sex offenders, like several states have done with teenagers who have sex with each other (or have nude pictures of each other).

An additional concern is obviously conservatives trying to use this against trans people and drag queens, whom they are already trying to define as sex offenders just for existing in public.

Another concern or just question is…is this meant to be a deterrent? And is it even effective in that? For a lot of child sex offenders, a major component of the pleasure derived is from having power over the child in question. Removing their genitals wouldn’t necessarily change that? It’s possible it may even have them turn more to violence toward children as their outlet.

I’m just wondering on the effectiveness of this method. Is there any evidence at all or is this being done on an emotional whim?

Do you mean the ICC or the ICJ? The ICJ is a part of the UN, so yes, the US is connected to that decision.

But the ICC is an independent organization connected to a separate treaty called the Rome Statute. The US is one of a small number of (usually terrible) countries that haven’t signed it.

Why would any of these be mentioned in practically any class outside of some law and education courses?

This is the nuclear speech all over again.

That’s precisely why I consider conflating anti-Zionism as anti-semitic is itself anti-semitic. Because it is Zionists trying to tie the Jewish identity and Jewishness as a whole to everything Israel does. Which is just insulting to all Jewish peoples.

So, they just have to let themselves be blown up and shot and fighting back is illegal?

I’m talking about right now. For example, for the people in Rafah. Do the Palestinians in Rafah have the right to fight back against the IDF that is shelling them and attacking their homes with tanks?

Question: Is it appropriate for those civilians to get weapons and fight back against the IDF that is killing them?

The shipment stopping prior was only for that one set of bombs. Not all weapons aid entirely.

pats your head It’s okay, I know reading comprehension is difficult for some people.

I knew about that, but that action was taken a couple of days ago before the Rafah attack started. I remember the news articles about it then. Hopefully the above indicates this stoppage will be true for any and all weapons shipments, not just those bombs.

So, since they’re attacking Rafah right now, that means you’re going to stop giving them weapons right now, right? Right?

I’ve seen so many pro-Israel people essentially make a “look what you made me do” argument every time the IDF murders a child. It’s gross.

He didn’t need to order is specifically. He was kept in prison in terrible conditions and died because of that. The outcome of his dying was still what Putin wanted (or at least didn’t care if it happened). No orders required.

This sort of reporting and claims from the intelligence community feels like obfuscation by using a technically true statement, but irrelevant to the overall issue.

I mean, it’s better than them using land lines like they used to. And, if they did it properly, then their calls should have caller ID saying it’s the polling service. Also, they should leave a message to get called back.

I don’t know if they did any of that, but it would be the right way to do it.

Did you have a point? That’s a standard sample size for polls.

according to a 10-page report recently released by the staff of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s Democratic majority

Unfortunately, I’m not sure if a report from this group is going to result in anything. We need something with more teeth.

Really makes me wonder what the meaning behind Lavender is in this context. There could quite easily be some horrific intention behind using that specific word in correlation to this murder system.

Couldn’t you use that same claim to say that multiple known genocides weren’t because the populations are higher now? Heck, I see morons use the same argument to claim China isn’t committing genocide because the Uighur population is higher now.

The fallacious “but the population is higher” argument is an idiotic attempt to whitewash genocide.