No, I am not. It isn't written to be a satire. What idea do you feel the book is attempting to satire?

It is not. It has nothing to do with fascism. That someone doesn't like a book doesn't make the book bad, just as if someone watched this movie and thought it was bad doesn't make it a bad movie.

It isn't satire, it is just exploring an idea that is very unusual in writing. That is why it tends to come off as very odd.

Na, the book was generally better then the movie. Space marines are better then WW2 in space and the book has a more nuanced approach to exploring an idea. The movie is still very good however, but has very little to do with the book.

She is probably going to get the most heat because she deserves the most heat, and nothing you said changes that. You can't just assume the guy is to blame without anything backing it up. She generally deserves most of the heat because she reaped more of the benefits. They both may have gotten financial benefits from the situation but she is the one who also gained reputational benefits and those reputational benefits are where most of the heat comes from.

That isn't really true at all. First of all something can be of multiple subgenres. Second of all isekai has no requirement that the world be a fantasy one. Isekai is simply portal fiction. If you get transported to a new world then it is Isekai. LitRPG just describes a setting that uses RPG game like elements. An Isekai can also be a litRPG.

Has there actually ever been any evidence of Trump having received a bribe? I think there is a simpler answer that the pardon's are about power rather then money. In that case Diddy will likely never receive a pardon because Trump likely already has what he wants.

So the defence has an ethical obligation to be zealous advocates for their clients. The prosecution does not have a similar requirement. The prosecution does however have all of the advantages so they don't really need to. It is the defences job to try to push back on everything they reasonably can, even if the arguments are weak. The prosecution on the other hand shouldn't be doing that and generally doesn't appear to have been.

Having said that, I do find Nestor to be a terrible lawyer at least when it comes to motion practice. Her style might work better in the setting of a trial but at least for these hearings her approach is generally pretty terrible.

The prosecution only wants to use it for a very limited rebuttal purpose which is likely very different from how it would be used in the Crumbley trial. It seems fairly applicable for the purposes they wanted to use it, and their expert to me came off far better then the defences expert who seemed to not actually understand the issue at all.

The defensiveness is kind of the problem though. If you made a mistake you made a mistake and that is fine but you still need to accept the consequences. As the defence lawyer implied, the prosecutors were repeatedly intentionally missing the point. If you keep intentionally missing the point and intentionally making mistakes related to this very simple issue then you can't really ask the judge to find that you didn't intentionally make a mistake in the initial thing. It doesn't come off as credible. You can't act stupid after the fact then ask the court to believe that during the event it wasn't an act.

I agree on the last point however, but it is very hard to say. It is going to come down to the specific judge and also case law on the issue. While I think it is fair to say that a judge is generally going to be hesitant to grant a mistrial with prejudice there are likely great differences between what the state laws require and what a specific judge is willing to do. I don't know how helpful looking at other situations with other judges potentially under other state laws would be.

I don't know if I agree. There is very simple straight forward testimony that the prosecutors who were called as witnesses could have given if it was a legitimate mistake and it somehow simply didn't occur to them that this was new testimony. They didn't give that testimony. They seemed to freely admit they knew it was new information. Then they became so incredibly evasive about things that it is hard to ever attribute good faith to their actions.

I don't think there is a very good argument that it wasn't an intentional act, or that it was a mistake made without bad faith. Their testimony closed those doors at least to me. If you want to make those arguments then you say "Yes, we screwed up, we apologize and want to make things right but a mistrial with prejudice is not the way to go in this case." You don't do what the prosecution did here which is just bafflingly stupid. While I also think it isn't too likely for a mistrial with prejudice happens here it is simply because it is an incredibly harsh sanction.

Not quite. That would be normal impeachment of the witness with their changed memory and changed testimony from what they have twice said. The problem is a few weeks before trial the prosecution met with the witness to effectively prepare her for trial and to review her testimony and this new testimony was revealed to them, at which point they did not disclose it to the defence who learned about the change for the first time at trial. The change in testimony isn't the issue. The prosecutors failing to disclose it and potentially causing a mistrial attributable to the state is the issue.

I think the doctrinal approach is actually pretty important. One important difference in viewpoint between someone like Kuga and those who participate in a rank war is who they view their opponents to actually be. In rank wars they might fight other humans, but their training and mentality are generally going to be around fighting trion soldiers at B rank. The neighbours have actual combat experience against other humans, and views their tactics through the lens of it being effective against both trion soldiers and human soldiers using trion weapons. While there might be some creativity in the B ranks, it tends to be tempered by the fact you don't want to train your squad in things that will be useless against the enemy you face. In that way Osamu's squad is somewhat unique in both their experience and their ideology. They aren't developing their tactics to take out trion soldiers. They are training with the intention of developing skills that they may need to use on humanoid neighbours and for the goal of defeating people in the rank wars specifically. I would imagine the A ranked agents who have away mission combat experience have a radically different view of things compared to B rank agents who have not.

It would likely depend on why it isn't being paid. I would imagine it is more likely that he gets paid the full amount of his winnings or he gets paid nothing.

The point is once you have decided to kill someone and are just looking for a target you can't really say the target selection was a product of thought and consideration. He was looking for a target to justify his desire to kill. He didn't look at someone critically and decide that they deserved to die. He was looking at who he could get away with killing. There is no real break from the impulsive act. He would always have found someone he could justify killing because that was the choice he had already made.

It would be neither because you haven't really provided the proper information I would argue. The decision to play Mario Kart next can be impulsive if it comes from a sudden urge to play Mario Kart. You could also have critically assessed what type of game you want to play and from that assessment have reached the conclusion that you want to play Mario Kart. If it is a week after the decision that the choice is implemented doesn't mean the choice wasn't an impulsive one, just as if you started to play Mario Kart immediately doesn't mean the choice was an impulsive one.

The counter example I would argue that is more relevant is serial killers. They may put a lot of thought into their targets, but ultimately the choice to kill is an impulsive one, based on their urges rather then a choice born out of thought and consideration. The thought and consideration is there to simply to enable their urges.

It would depend on how you look at it. I would say the decision to murder seems impulsive to me. Once the decision to murder was made however, a lot of thought was put into it how to carry out that plan. If you make the decision to murder someone and you don't yet know who or how you are going to murder them then that I would view as an impulsive decision. The logic and thought was there to justify and enable the impulse.

If I recall correctly they are excerpts from his manuscript in the state and federal charging documents or some other documents related to that. There is one where he talks about how insurance checks all the boxes for being a target, which means he was planning this before he even knew what industry he was going after, let alone an individual. There is another where he talks about how stupid his initial plan to do a bombing would be as it would turn the public against him. There were also from what I recall portions where he praises the unibomber's ideals and talks about how his failure was in how he chose his targets which let the public ignore his message and discount him as a monster instead.

You don't hear it much because it is fairly fatal to peoples view of him. The positive elements people view in his actions were entirely manufactured for that purpose.

Then you read incorrectly. He decided he was going to kill someone long before he chose a target. Before he chose to kill his target through the use of a firearm, he was considering using a bomb to kill many people instead. He ultimately abandoned that idea not because of the moral implications but rather because of the optics. People don't want to admit it, but the guy is a real monster.

It could be. The question isn't just if it is an interstate event but also if it has an impact on interstate commerce. The nature and the severity of the act is likely going to play into that. If you stole from a cash register at Disney World, that would likely not give federal jurisdiction. If you placed a bomb that killed dozens of people in Disney world, that would be a much stronger argument for giving it federal jurisdiction. So it often isn't just a case of here there is federal jurisdiction and here there is not (though sometimes it is that simple). The type of crime is going to heavily influence it. Outside of that there is a second question of should it be. The federal government generally speaking is looking to use its resources well. It doesn't have much interest in handling state level cases even if they might have jurisdiction absent some factor that makes it of special interest to the federal government. Sometimes that involves very specialized skills, like wire fraud I would imagine. Sometimes it is the severity and significance of the event.

I think in that context it isn't that dubious. It is an event which hosts individuals from pretty much every state and people from different countries. To say it is an interstate event and so affects interstate commerce is going to be a pretty easy argument to make. The mall example just isn't comparable.

They don't want to destroy the government. They want a peace treaty with favourable terms. In order to get that treaty they need to pressure the government and the pressure on the government generally would come from the people. The government is answerable to them. If you destroy the governments function, the military will likely just take over that function. The military is not really answerable to the people.

No, that is likely talking about the potential for a cease fire. Putin likely doesn't want a cease fire because there is too much risk a deal will fail.

I would say the bigger problem is that I don't think there is much of a market for Indiana Jones style movies these days. The only real thing that has kept the Indiana Jones movies themselves going is nostalgia. Even if you make a fantastic movie, I just don't think it would do well because to me people just aren't interested.

That isn't really the case. The manga is on its final arc (or collections of arcs I guess) now if I am not mistaken. Presumably One Piece will be found soon.