No, the article reports as much information as is publicly available. If the FCC wanted to be more specific in their reasoning, they would've been. Reporters can't just magically make recalcitrant public officials talk. This is an example of poor media literacy on your part.
TheSanSabaSongbird
joined 2 years ago
It's not psuedoscience, it's simply the observation that, as this thread shows, it can often be difficult to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions. I question your understanding of the word "psuedoscience," if you think it applies to Poe's Law.
It's Poe's Law in action. In this age of unreality it can be almost impossible to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions.
Because if he loses, he's going to face the consequences of his crimes. That has to matter. The rule of law has to matter.
Nixon's pardon was bullshit, but being forced to resign the presidency is not nothing either in the sense that he certainly did face real consequences. I'm with you that he should have faced greater consequences, but it's simply not the case that he got away with it either. Getting away with everything would mean that he got to finish his term and retire as a respected former president. He didn't.
And your point is? That doesn't change the fact that there will still be consequences.
Or the VP could walk down the hall, shoot the president and then, as president, be immune from criminal prosecution. It's absurd on its face.
She could also do the same thing if presidents are allowed to pardon themselves.
Not at all. In fact, far from being risky, it's the received wisdom here on Lemmy. I will get far more downvotes for merely questioning the framing of it as a genocide than will OP.
You are badly confused in your vision of what's possible.
It surely didn't help. At this point I don't think people can be blamed for being spooked and leery of anything that might help Trump.
This is by design on the part of Hamas though. It doesn't excuse the situation, but it does make it more complicated especially with regard to intent, which has to matter when considering charges of genocide.
Read this very carefully; winning an election doesn't mean that you get to do everything you want. Again; winning an election doesn't mean that you get to do everything you want.
There are a lot of people who don't seem to understand this concept. Winning an election just means that you get to try to do what you want, but you're always going to have to make compromises because that's how democracies work.