1
0
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

Hey folks. I just want to check in with the community about a post that was recently removed. My intention is absolutely not to create drama or stir anything up, but I'd like to make sure you all understand my reasoning for removing the post. Also, I'm aware that I'm not as good at articulating these kinds of things as some of our folks, so don't expect a classic Beehaw philosophy post here.

The post in questions was a link to a twitter thread providing evidence of the IRL identity of "comic" "artist" stonetoss, who is unquestionably a huge piece of shit and a neo-nazi, or at least something so indistinguishable from one that the difference is meaningless.

The post provoked some discussion in the Mod chat and several of us, myself included, were on the fence about it. I understand that there are arguments both for and against naming and calling out people like stonetoss. I find arguments in both directions somewhat convincing, but ultimately the thing that a number of us expressed was that the act of calling someone like this out and potentially exposing them to harassment or real-world consequences for their views might be morally defensible, it didn't feel like Beehaw was the right place for it. We really want Beehaw to be a place that is constructive and kind, and that this type of doxxing/callout didn't seem to fit our vision what what we want Beehaw to be. At the same time, we're all very conscious that it would be easy for this kind of thinking to lead to tone policing and respectability politics, and that is also something we want to be careful to avoid. All this to say that I made what I think was the best decision in the moment for the overall health of !politics as a community, as I saw it.

On a personal note, I find that our Politics community is one of the communities that is most prone to falling into some of the traps that Beehaw was created to avoid. That's very understandable - politics are something that cause real and immediate harm and stress in a lot of folks' lives; they're complicated, contentious, and often make us feel powerless. I'd like to remind folks as we move into the general election season in the US, though, to remember the founding principles of Beehaw when discussing these topics, no matter how stressful they may be: remember the human, assume good faith in others, and above all, be(e) nice.

Thanks,

TheRtRevKaiser

2
0
submitted 2 months ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
3
1
submitted 9 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
4
1
submitted 9 months ago by gregorum@lemm.ee to c/politics@beehaw.org
5
1
submitted 9 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
6
1
7
1

Smith’s execution by “nitrogen hypoxia” took around 22 minutes, according to media witnesses, who were led into a viewing room at the William C Holman correctional facility in Atmore shortly before 8 pm local time.

8
1
submitted 9 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
9
1
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by BitOneZero@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

Tori Otten
January 24, 2024

Donald Trump celebrated winning the New Hampshire primary in his signature style: a series of deluded ravings. But connoisseurs of the former president’s rants were treated to an unexpected dollop of irony last night, as Trump came out against the losers of elections laying claim to victory.

Trump was the victor Tuesday night, winning the Granite State’s Republican primary with 54.5 percent of the vote. Nikki Haley came second, but her 43.2 percent support was far higher than anyone initially expected—a fact she celebrated as she promised supporters she would keep pushing.

Haley’s resilience immediately infuriated Trump, who turned his victory speech into a Haley roast. “I find in life, you can’t let people get away with bullshit,” he said, flanked by the nightmare blunt rotation of Vivek Ramaswamy, Tim Scott, and Eric Trump.

“And when I watched her in the fancy dress—that probably wasn’t so fancy—come up, I said, ‘What’s she doing? We won.’ And she did the same thing last week,” Trump said, referring to Haley celebrating after coming third in Iowa.

Having failed to fully purge himself of his excess emotions during his speech, Trump then took his grievances to social media, at one point writing on Truth Social, “Could somebody please explain to Nikki Haley that she lost—and lost really badly. She also lost Iowa, BIG, last week.”

It’s pretty rich for Trump to say that people who lose should just accept their loss. After all, he has been indicted twice, once at the federal level and once at the state, for failing to accept a loss so hard that he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

(Continues on website)

10
1
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org

Via @GottaLaff@mastodon.social mostly sourced from Inner City Press. Errors or omissions / scrambling of the order or anything, are probably mine. This is not a verbatim transcript, just an initial partial summary of some of the exchanges based on press reports.

https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/111818115089134672


(Jury is not present at this point)

Judge Kaplan: Ms. Habba, do you have any other witnesses?

Habba: Yes. President Trump.

Judge Kaplan: I have a few things to say.

Judge Kaplan: There was a trial last year about the truth or falsity of Ms. Carroll claims. Mr. Trump was listed as a witness but did not testify. The jury found for Ms. Carroll. There are no do-overs, it's called issue preclusion or collateral estoppel.

Judge Kaplan: The jury found that Mr. Trump inserted his fingers into her vagina. And that Ms. Carroll did not make up her claim. And that Mr. Trump's June 11 and June 22 statements were defamatory. Now Mr. Trump may not make any argument against this.

Judge Kaplan: Ms. Carroll adhered to the Court's rulings. Ms. Kaplan on behalf of Ms. Carroll questioned if Mr. Trump could offer any admissible testimony. Ms. Habba, you said he could testify about the reporters' questions, and if he was acting with ill will.

Judge Kaplan: A judge must seek to exclude inadmissible evidence. Concerns exist here, as including in Ms. Kaplan's letter. I want to confirm a few things. Ms. Habba, what would he testify to?

Habba: I have only three questions for my client.

Judge Kaplan: We're going to do it my way.

Habba: He's going to stand by his deposition. That he had to respond to accusation and deny them.

Judge Kaplan: That's 100%?

Habba: I'm not testifying for my client.

(She says he'll also claim that he didn't mean to harm her, but had to respond to the claims.)

...

Judge Kaplan: Let me hear from the other side.

Roberta Kaplan: Just now, Mr. Trump said under his breath he's going to say he never did it.

Judge Kaplan: He will not testify about questions asked of him by reporters?

Habba: No. If I may your Honor--

Judge Kaplan: No.

Judge Kaplan: What are your questions?

Habba: That he stands behind his deposition. I'll ask about his state of mind, he'll say he was defending himself --

Judge Kaplan: And that's it?

Habba: Yes. And that he never intended to hurt Ms. Carroll.

...

Roberta Kaplan: He had an opportunity to participate in a trial--

Judge Kaplan: And he lost. I will so instruct the jury. More than once.

Trump: I wasn't at the trial, I never met this woman.

Judge Kaplan: Mr. Trump, keep your voice down.

...

Judge Kaplan: Will your client abide?

Habba: Absent having a glass ball--

(Trump is speaking)

Judge Kaplan: Mr. Trump, that is not allowed... I will permit him to get on the stand. You ask if he stands by it. That's it.

Habba: Only one question?

Judge Kaplan: You can ask the 2d question.

Habba: Why did you make the statements--

Judge Kaplan: No.

Habba: I have a right to ask about intent.

Judge Kaplan: I will decide what he has a right to do here. That's my job, not yours.

...

(That was before the jury came back in. Once the jury reenters:)

Judge Kaplan: I hope lunch was better than the cafeteria usually is. Ms. Habba, you may call your witness.

Habba: Defense calls President Donald Trump.

Trump: Donald John Trump.

Habba: You viewed your deposition?

Trump: I stand by it 100%, yes.

Trump: She said something I considered a false accusation--

Roberta Kaplan: Objection!

Judge Kaplan: Sustained.

Habba: I have no further questions.

Judge Kaplan: Cross examination.

Roberta Kaplan: There was a trial here, correct?

Trump: Yes.

Roberta Kaplan: Mr. Trump, is this the 1st trial between you and Ms. Carroll you've attended?

Trump: Yes.

Roberta Kaplan: No further questions.

Habba: Did you have counsel at the previous trial & follow their advice?

Trump: Yes.

Roberta Kaplan: Objection

Judge Kaplan: Sustained

Habba: No further questions.

Judge Kaplan: Jurors, you may go until tomorrow morning, closing arguments.

...

(Alternate source for part of the direct examination)

Habba: Did you deny the allegation to defend yourself?

Trump: Yes, I did. That’s exactly right. She said something i considered a false accusation...

Kaplan instructed to jury to disregard everything after "Yes, I did."

Habba: Did you instruct anyone to hurt Ms. Carroll?

Trump: No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency...

Kaplan instructed the jury to disregard everything after "No."

11
1

However, medical and legal experts told ABC News that nitrogen gas as a method for execution is untested and there's no evidence the method will be any more humane or painless than lethal injection.

"I've never heard anyone say, 'We've got this new method of execution. We've looked at it carefully. We know that this method of execution will cause a death that will not be cruel. Here's the evidence,'" Dr. Joel Zivot, an associate professor in the department of anesthesiology at Emory University School of Medicine, told ABC News. "That's what needed to be said. No one has said that."

12
1

SCOTUS Green Lights Novel Execution Method Human rights organizations previously denounced the use of nitrogen gas

13
1
14
1
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Kwakigra@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

This is a fascinating survey of the political realities of contemporary Israel from the perspective of an Israeli leftist. Although I don't endorse every view expressed by the author I do consider this piece to be an excellent tool to understand the internal political influences pushing and pulling in Israel right now.

Please be skeptical of the claims made in this article. This was posted for purposes of cultural insight

15
1
submitted 9 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
16
1
submitted 9 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/politics@beehaw.org
17
1
18
1
submitted 9 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/politics@beehaw.org
19
1
submitted 9 months ago by memfree@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

Dixville Notch has a tradition of first-in-the-nation voting that dates back to 1960, with the results announced just a few minutes after midnight.

the above is no longer true, but the town is still first in its state.

With such a tiny sample of voters, the results are not typically indicative of how an election will end up. But they do provide for an early curiosity.

The six registered voters of tiny Dixville Notch in New Hampshire all cast their ballots for Nikki Haley at midnight on Tuesday, giving her a clean sweep over former President Donald Trump and all the other candidates.

There were 4 republican and 2 independent voters. The latter could have chosen either republican or democratic ballots, but since the state is all in a tiff about not being the first primary anymore, the state kept Biden off the ballot (you could still write him in) and the TWO independent voters opted for the republican ballots where they chose Nikki.

20
1
submitted 9 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
21
1
submitted 9 months ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
22
1
submitted 9 months ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
23
1
submitted 9 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
24
1
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by streetfestival@lemmy.ca to c/politics@beehaw.org

Last week, we passed the 100th-day mark of Israel’s latest episode of aggression against the people of Gaza. It was a depressing milestone to consider. A hundred days of Palestinians being mercilessly exterminated in all kinds of brutal ways: Israeli bombs ripping them apart, Israeli bullets piercing their skulls, and the Israeli-imposed siege starving them or killing them through otherwise treatable infections.

A hundred days in which the countries that said “never again” almost 80 years ago did nothing to stop our extermination. A hundred days in which we pleaded, humanitarian organisations pleaded, the United Nations pleaded and people in the streets across the world pleaded, but we were all ignored.

25
1
submitted 9 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/politics@beehaw.org
view more: next ›

Politics

10150 readers
1 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS