|
1
on: Today at 06:40:14 PM
|
|
Started by All Along The Watchtower - Last post by GregTheGreat657
|
Possibly a former swing voter between Con and Lib, but definitely would be pretty safe Con in this election.
This one's from another Netflix show.
Gender: Male
Age: 60
Religion: None
Occupation: Retired/Cancelled B-list TV and movie actor
Hometown: San Francisco, CA
Current Residence: Beverly Hills, CA
Family: Single. Has a half-sister who's cut all ties with him.
Interests: Acting, rewatching his old shows, sometimes drawing attention to himself (usually not positive attention). Trying to recover from a lifetime of alcoholism and drug abuse.
Former soc lib moderate democrat, turned moderate Trump supporter.
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Religion: Very catholic in his younger days. Converting to hinduism nowadays.
Ethnic origin: PR father, white italian american mother
Hometown: A NJ Berger County suburb
Current Residence: A Orange County, CA suburb.
Occupation: Publicist for an advertising agency.
Likes to do work for conpanies of morally gray sectors (oil, weed, coal, tobacco, etc)
Education: Bch of Arts. Plans to do a masters.
Family: Engaged
Interests: Watching baseball, running, using 4chan and reddit.
Dreams of having a lot of sons and daughters.
Dreamed to be a cop as child, but he gave up as he has a chronic minor health related issue.
Race: White
Gender: Female
Age: 42
Occupation: Was most recently a real estate agent
Income: Lives on savings
Religion: Catholic
Marital Status: Never married
Children: 1, a 10 year old son
Location: Small town Colorado
Hobbies: painting, knitting, baking
Other: Was a sex worker in the past
Democrat or libertarian...might usually be a lower-propensity voter who turns out due to abortion issues. I would assume she is pro-choice but it could actually be the complete opposite (if the child was out of wedlock or possibly one of her customers and she decided to go through with the pregnancy, could be an indication that she's very pro-life). I do think she'd be left wing though (even the hobbies seem like they'd better fit a Democrat than Republican).
Race: 3/4 white (one grandparent is African-American)
Gender: M
Age: 39
Occupation: Corporate lawyer
Income: $120k
Education: Master's degree at LSU
Religion: Protestant (his parents were Evangelicals and he is too, but not as fervently)
Sexuality: Bisexual; is semi-closeted (his friends know; his colleagues and customers mostly don't)
Marital Status: Widower (wife died during childbirth 6 years ago and he didn't remarry)
Children: None
Lives in: Slidell, Louisiana
Neoliberal Race: White Gender: Female Age: 41 Occupation: Housewife Income: Lower six figures, as her husband is a lawyer Marital Status: Married Children: 2, 10 and 5 year old sons Location: Small town Colorado Other: Occasionally protests, is known to be an unusually overbearing mother, adopted her younger son from Canada |
|
|
2
on: Today at 06:37:34 PM
|
|
Started by TheReckoning - Last post by Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope
|
|
Yes, but that doesn't mean they should. Though in retrospect, they really should have sent in the Mossad to clandestinely take out Hamas' leadership before doing anything in Gaza.
|
|
|
3
on: Today at 06:36:46 PM
|
|
Started by Harry Hayfield - Last post by KaiserDave
|
|
Tory vs Labour frontbench in rugby, who wins?
|
|
|
4
on: Today at 06:36:40 PM
|
|
Started by Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers - Last post by Bush did 311
|
|
Stein kicked his campaign off by proposing tax cuts and Republicans are still gonna say he's too liberal, which is hysterical at this point. The guy's a center-right NC democrat similar to Cooper or Easley. Nobody's gonna care about his policies anyway. A dem governor's job in NC is to veto things. There's little else they can expect to ever do.
Until they get the numbers in the major cities to push for more, they will continue fielding a certain type of moderate that can win enough libertarian ticket splitters to top off their numbers to hold the governorship and prevent the state from turning into Honduras... as they have done.
|
|
|
5
on: Today at 06:33:58 PM
|
|
Started by Big Abraham - Last post by Schiff for Senate
|
|
Used to consider him an FF, recently the anti-Biden concern trolling has turned him into an HP. Still definitely enough time/potential for him to revert to an FF in my book, though.
|
|
|
8
on: Today at 06:31:46 PM
|
|
Started by Hnv1 - Last post by pppolitics
|
That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act. And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever. These were not top guys. This strike never should’ve been launched.
According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".
This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.
Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.
That’s not genocide. A war crime? Quite possibly, but not genocide. Words have meaning.
Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.
That is not the case.
When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.
And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well. The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner. Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide. It isn’t even a close call.
We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.
Let's look at these charges.
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
- Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
- Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
- Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
- Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity. What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant. I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation. If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.
Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said. “you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember” - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites. IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear. They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians". https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation. |
|
|
10
on: Today at 06:28:18 PM
|
|
Started by PSOL - Last post by Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope
|
|
Am I crazy or is there an outside chance for this guy to appeal to dejected and disaffected college kids off the back of his whole "gay, anti-war, pro-immigration" thing?
|
|
|
