Armchair economist here. I think that would be a massive hit to US dollar supremacy, no? The main reason USD is considered a stable and safe to use as a "reserve currency", as I understand it, is because of trust in the U.S. government and its ability to meet its financial obligations.

If the court rules this way, wouldn't it be a debt owed to the tariff payers? What would stop these capital owners, especially the wealthy and respected ones with lots of lawyers, from going after the US government for non-payment? Wouldn't the government essentially have to declare bankruptcy to say they can't pay back the money that was taken via illegal tariffs?

If nothing else; a government that seizes capital, by means considered illegal under its own enforced code of laws, and then refuses (or is unable) to give back what is rightfully owed; this reads to me like a major breach of trust with capital owners that trade in the US.

This is partly a reply to @thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net's comment, I just keep replying in the wrong place lol

Uh if the 90% overall homeownership rate isn't "backing it up" I want to know how you define "better"

Also the tank is very clearly leaving the square in that video, if you've seen any imagery of the area it's immediately recognizable. (Besides that; it also doesn't make sense that the street is so clear, that close to the square, because the military did encounter serious resistance going in. I wonder why we don't see that imagery floating around 🤔)

He's not standing in the way of them to protest the intervention before it started, he's demanding that the tanks turn around and remain present in the square some time after everything that had occurred.

If that day comes, do you really think that the absence of your name on a roster is going to stop them? Obedience in advance only teaches authority what it can get away with. The capabilities of authority generally are much less far-reaching than what they lead us to believe. Oppression breeds resistance and struggle, whereas the state would have us believe in the fantasy of unilateral control and suppression of dissent.

You owe it to yourself to study revolutionary history beyond just the most shocking events that scare you away from organizing. In the words of the late assata shakur; It is our duty to fight. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

1. What evidence do you have to justify your assertion that Ukrainian culture, language, and identity were targets of destruction?

2. In this case, yes??? If we're setting out to prove intent to commit genocide, both the actions and rhetoric of the accused are pretty important evidence. You don't really get one without the other, the rhetoric is necessary to justify the actions to the people who will ultimately have to commit them.

Recognizing statehood is a pretty base level of recognizing the humanity and sovereignty of those that occupy it, which the USSR would not have done for Ukraine if their intent was to wipe out the Ukrainian culture and national identity and replace it with Russian identity. As evidenced by Israel, genocidaires prefer their victims as defenseless and disorganized as possible. Colonizers don't recognize borders on land they seek to colonize. Israel has denied and undermined Palestinian statehood at every stop, literally rewriting history to support their narrative, because allowing Palestinians to have a state with any level of recognized sovereignty would be wholly counter-productive to Israel's colonial project.

So how do you explain Ukraine being granted statehood within the Soviet Union? If, by your account, the USSR went to all this trouble to brutally cleanse the land of Ukrainians and their culture by means of starvation, why did they then just leave the land to be looked after by a Ukrainian state? Why did they give up on this ambition for Russia to occupy Ukraine? Where else have you ever seen a colonizer just up and leave a colony, still mostly occupied by natives, and grant those natives full statehood in their union??? What you're claiming just makes no sense when put into greater context.

Put it as your linkedin banner and see what happens

Imagine being an FBI informant just for the same government to turn around and give you 14 years for a crime that it only selectively cares about

These people seriously think Russia is some prolific yet bumbling Empire, and NATO is the only benevolent force standing in the way of global russification. No evidence or basis in reality, just vibes. I really wish I had whatever they're smoking.

It's estimated that about 50-75% of people don't have an internal monologue at all.

Fascism is capitalism

That said, hasn't Mamdani promised to arrest Netanjahu if he wins the Mayoral race?

If the US left NATO it would cease to exist. It's a protection racket, and one without a real threat at that. It was always intended as a red scare tactic (operation gladio for example) and to isolate the USSR, which no longer exists, by expanding US military influence across Europe. NATO has never been about european defense and it would be a solution in search of a cause without the US.