It’s the other way around. As I said, the FDP was more for giving capitalists in general an advantage, therefore they were often called the dentists’ party. The AfD on the other hand doesn’t give a fuck about keeping the economy afloat as long as some selected oligrachs can still make a profit out of it. An example is the complete privatization of the medical system.
That would be English law. I think the closest German equivalent would be ripped apart with red-hot pliers and broken one the wheel. Not that I would ever suggest that this should be reintroduced.
The FDP was the economy and business first party. The AfD is a party for the extremely rich. That’s a difference.
And you didn’t even try to make that point either. You just say so. That was your whole role in this discussion.
I am citing real history books, and everyone that knows this history fucking knows I am right. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You’re really hilarious. You didn’t cite one single “history book”, you just kept claiming you are right and ignoring any kind of argument.
Just to embarrass you even more. Here’s a small study looking at different justice systems. https://university.open.ac.uk/research-centres/herc/blog/anglo-american-jury-system-there-another-way
You know what the funniest thing about your whole pitiful attempt at arguing is? Russia has a jury system. Sure, they have been dismantling it for decades, but that’s a symptom and not a cause of its current course.
Here, have a link, if you don’t believe me. But honestly, it’s really ridiculous and immature to believe that there is an ideal system.
Sure, try to change the topic. You didn’t address most of the arguments I made anyway.
First of all, ALL countries basically allow politicians to appoint judges, how else you going to do it?
I did not complain about politically appointed judges. You did! You brought that up in a way that read like you didn’t know this. So I wrote one example. Now you call me a moron for providing you an example?
That is not unique to common law countries, the birthplace of western liberty in the modern era by the way.
Goes to show how narrow your horizon is. It does not even include the whole “western” world. France would really have to have a word with you there, just for example. Furthermore, being the “birthplace” of something often means sticking to outdated ideas - a case that could be easily made for common law in general.
Now, you want to trust your accusation to a politically appointed and dependent hack over a jury of your peers?
It’s funny that you hold common law in such regard and fear politically appointed judges, since courts have much more power in common law than in many other systems, blurring the line between jurisdiction and legislation.
Let me rephrase your question in an intentionally unfair way, just to keep on par with your writing style: Do you want to trust your accusation to a crowd of random people who are not in any way educated in law or to people who are professionally trained and should know it to the letter?
I have to say it like this because you won’t accept that the system has any flaws. I also made the point of lay judges several times - which is, if practiced right, a way to include peers but without the flaws of a jury trial. I think it’s safe to say that you do not know what this is and refuse to look it up, because this would go against your precious beliefs.
I almost posted an ableist slur of sorts, not the hard r, but was going to ask if you had all of your mental faculties. Sorry to end an otherwise reasonable post with what one might consider an insult, but it is warranted here as I saw it.
Now that fits your boorish and naive way of arguing pretty well. You can’t accept nuance, you did not look into other systems at all and you try to hold failing arguments you made against me.
Not very suprising. That’s the main reason why castles are ruined nowadays. But of course it’s interesting to be able to trace individual stones.
The larger a country is, the less you can trust their judges and court.
That’s complete nonsense, though. While it’s true that our largest countries have broken justice systems, it’s not like there is any tendency to get better systems in smaller countries.
Politicians that choose judges does not lead to real justice. maybe we don’t see the harms because everyone is ground under the heel of oppression.
Whether politicians choose the judges or not has nothing to do with whether you have a jury system or not. GB has a jury system and the judges of the highest court are chosen by politicians.
Jury trials are the ideal. We should all want them. Hail the magna carta!
No, they are not the ideal. Juries tend to be wooed by the flashiest presentation and tend to prefer a well told story over the actual law. Ever heard of the CSI-effect? In theory this is much better addressed in a lay judge system, but this also has its downsides. That you see this system as an ideal and “hail” the Magna Carta, just goes to show that you haven’t looked at other justice traditions.
I think you got that wrong. 300k visitors a year is very, very few. For comparison: Our local open-air museum for old farm houses has about 45k visitors a year. And it’s only open in summer.
San Diego says they have about 30 million visitors a year. (https://www.sandiego.org/about/industry-research)
I knew a guy who emptied a whole drum of .38 special into a hog that was charging him - though he probably missed half of the shots. Where I live, almost every hunter has stories like that. One told me he once shot a three-legged old boar and found a shotgun slug and several bullets in it.
On the other hand, some people still hunt feral hogs with dogs and spears around here and it’s more likely that a dog gets accidentaly shot than killed by a boar. I heard of a guy who jumped a hog with a knife to save his dog. I’ve only ever heard of one guy who got actually hurt by a pig. They also tend to get used to people easily if they’re not hunted. So the danger is a bit exaggerated.
Domesticated hogs are much more likely to eat you than feral ones and not only because they get the chance more often. If a feral hog kills you, it’s not thinking about food, but just wants you to be not there anymore. A domesticated pig on the other hand might just start to eat you because you are there.
It’s not like that. If you piss the off, they’ll rip your legs open while running past you. They don’t care if they kill, they just want you to be not a theat anymore. They might eat you later if they find your body again, but they don’t plan on doing it.
I don’t see what this has to do with jury trials. A jury will eat up planted evidence as well as a judge or lay judges. It comes down to tight control of policework, which is a fantasy anyway.
They run impressment gangs?
From what I understand it’s mainly the cops. If you have a confrontation with the police, you can count on ending up on the front. There have been reports of people claiming they left them the choice of being framed on drug charges or volunteer for service
Yeah. It could backfire spectacularly for Putin.
The same thing did backfire during the revolts in several Warsaw Pact countries, especially in Hungary. Turns out, it’s not a good idea to teach every citizen how to disable a tank with household items if you later try to suppress urban riots with tanks.
Do you really have to copy everything in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Berlin_Lioness_Hunt
Spoiler: The “unidentified game animal” was a boar, too - as every expert had previously said.
You need to conduct your own study to proof that. Your study claims that there’s no real evidence for that, especially since other studies didn’t account for lifesyle and amount that was consumed enough.
No, it’s rather cowardly. He could have confronted Trump with it. Not that it would have helped, but it would have looked better.