Which of the Epstein files indicate a criminal offense requiring an arrest? I've seen so many of Epstein emails with comments like "WE NEED TO ARREST EVERYONE!" attached to a photo of Epstein with his goddaughter on his lap.
Like... Epstein was already arrested... and it does not appear he trafficked minors to anyone. Am I missing a key email somewhere?
The stock drop would be expected, but is there any credible source that denial rate dropped?
Section 132 was recorded in 1843 and they were married in 1827. This is not a matter of interpretation. You're just flat wrong.
By your logic, all sex in Christian marriages is rape. After all, they're all taught the threats God made against fornicators, thus they've been groomed under duress into marriage.
You can go with that logic, and it's not necessarily wrong. It just muddies what rape is into something meaningless.
I believe they were already married for many years before that. The threat of destruction was if she didn't stay loyal to him in their marriage. She's specially mentioned because she was consistently against polygamy, so this is more accurately described as intimidation to stay married. It's a stretch to say it supports rape, no more than marriage itself is a social/legal pressure for those married to have sex with each other.
It's very unlikely Joseph was in his 70s. Neither of their ages are mentioned. Common estimates for Mary are 13-14, and Joseph being in late teens or early 20s.
Instead of taking his virgin daughters, the mob wanted the men (angels). Pretty demoralizing for his daughters. Lot's daughter may be the first recorded femcels, which would explain their desperate attempt at getting pregnant by their father.
She was pubescent, and thus irrelevant to pedophilia.
How do they support rape? Or do you consider it rape of I tell I woman she'll go to hell if she doesn't consent?
I don't think the Bible talks about child brides. Without that, none of those are related to pedophilia...
It's ultimately about money though. If they believed ceding power/control to workers would get them more money, they'd do it. Workers are rarely invested in corporate success unless their pay is also tied to it. And even then, they're not nearly as invested as the founders and initial investors.
How did society get in the equation? If they're maximizing the wellbeing of their workers, how are non-workers (society) benefitting?
Term limits are anti-democratic, and are put in place in bourgeois democracy to prevent left-wing leaders from lasting long enough to overhaul the system, effectively gutting any radical change. Mao and Xi are both examples of extremely popular leaders, far moreso than Trump, Macron, Starmer, etc.
First part is true. Though it's ironic considering people are calling it fascism for Trump to hint at a third term, while Xi removed constitutional term limits so he could stay in power.
While term limits restrict voter choice, the complete absence of opposition parties restricts it far more. "Popularity" is functionally unmeasurable in a system without free press or competitive elections. You cannot accurately gauge approval ratings when disapproval is criminalized. Removing term limits without adding checks and balances historically leads to autocracy, not "radical change" as it entrenches a specific elite rather than the working class.
The Great Firewall isn't censorship, it's to promote domestic internet production and infrastructure so as to not be reliant on the west. The CPC does censor liberals, capitalists, and fascists, whereas the west censors communists and the working classes.
The "protectionism" argument fails because the Firewall blocks information, not just competitors. Blocking Wikipedia, news regarding 1989, or criticisms of the leadership has zero economic benefit. It is strictly political thought control.
Conversely, Communist parties are legal in the US. They run candidates and publish newspapers. In China, advocating for independent Marxist unions (like the Jasic Incident student group) gets you arrested. The state suppresses unauthorized leftists just as harshly as liberals.
This is where you highlight how little you understand fascism. The US Empire is driven by private ownership, corporations dominate the state. This is fascism. In the PRC, private property is subservient to the public sector and to the state. The CPC controls what capitalists can do, not the other way around, because the CPC is communist.
You are confusing Fascism with Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Fascism, by definition (as articulated by Mussolini and Gentile, or practiced by the Nazis), is the State dominating the corporation, not the other way around. Fascism seeks to merge corporate and state power under the direction of the state to serve national interests. This describes the Chinese model (statist control of capital) far more accurately than the US model (capitalist influence over the state). If the state commands the corporation, that aligns with the structural mechanics of fascism, regardless of whether the state calls itself "Communist."