This would be the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It’s interesting that the US is among the nations that have never ratified the treaty.

Also, Denmark has a long 500+ year history of charging ships to transit in and out of the Baltic Sea, so this really isn’t a new concept (Sound Tolls).

All foreign ships passing through the strait, whether en route to or from Denmark or not, had to stop in Helsingør and pay a toll to the Danish Crown. If a ship refused to stop, cannons in both Helsingør and Helsingborg could open fire and sink it.

The Epstein Memorial Ballroom is being built over an underground datacenter.

“The military is building a big complex under the ballroom" -Trump

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2026/03/30/military-building-massive-complex-underneath-trumps-white-house-ballroom.html

They don’t seem to be denying fragmentation/massive deformation. In fact, the crux of their comment relies on that fragmentation.

That massive deformation of the bullet comes from massive force, that didn’t happen to kirk’s neck.

The point is that, with the amount of force in applied to fragment this bullet, we do not see a similar amount of force applied to Charlie’s neck. There was no large exit wound, and the projectile did not appear to impact his spine.

Honestly, this comedian covers so many more obsurd issues with this case than I could think of. Shoutout to some other Lemmizen who introduced me to this video about a month back in another post.

I found it interesting that after Joe Kent resigned from being Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he went on the record to say that the FBI prevented them from investigating any foreign links to the Kirk assassination.

Edit: also, if anyone hasn’t seen this comedy bit on the assassination, it’s worth a watch.

More likely Israel.

I just searched for some more info on this and was definitely surprised by the design. That’s pretty neat. 😆

They are standing firm on two very reasonable AI guardrails that the Pentagon wants removed.

Anthropic has drawn two red lines: no mass surveillance of Americans and no fully autonomous weapons.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anthropics-safety-first-ai-collides-with-the-pentagon-as-claude-expands-into/

I’m driving a car from 1992 and I dont even spend $1000/year on maintenance and gas.

I can’t find an exact quote with the specific word genocide, but he has accused Bibi of committing war crimes. Also, an Israeli advocacy group named him "Antisemite of the Year” for his anti-Zionist stances.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tucker-carlson-named-antisemite-year-opposing-israels-genocide-gaza

I saw he was recently interviewing Palestinian-Christian pastors around Israel and neighboring countries. Maybe he was still over there as part of that trip.

20% of people outright lacking empathy is a lot. With such a large percentage, how can you be sure you aren’t one of them?

Yesterday I helped to clarify why AIPAC fucked up in the NJ special election. When my response was followed with the joke “Ah, thank you for not explaining that while literally walking out the d”, it started collecting downvotes. The “not explaining” seemed to stand out as negative, and I admit I was a little confused myself. However, instead of throwing shade or downvoting it myself, I just asked a simple question about what they meant. The response: “(I was walking out the door, like the author while writing the article)” put everything to rest. It was a joke about how the author of the posted article trailed off without coming to a clear conclusion.

Yet even after this clarification was posted, you jumped in with the worst negative assumption about the interaction. You weren’t seeking clarity or offering anyone support, you were looking to attack. Even after being respectfully asked to re-read the conversation, you double and tripled-down on this incorrect negative assumption. I feel that this attitude is evident here, as you challenge your “detractors” and charge that they are the ones lacking empathy. Don’t forget that every accusation is a confession.

Ultimately, I don’t agree with your 20% statistic. Mostly this is because I don’t believe in binary assignments, such as having or lacking empathy. We are all capable of making positive assumptions about each other’s intentions. Some of us just choose not to in certain circumstances, but there is always room for change.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, it’s even worse than most people realize. AIPAC is catching on to their drop in support and is now funneling their money to politicians through proxy PACs, such as the United Democracy Project (UDP). Also, since unrestricted arms sales to Israel is not a popular position, they didn’t bother attacking Malinowski on that issue. Instead, they put out ads on the topic of him funding ICE, since they knew that would hurt him more.

Good news is that AIPAC has now paid for the focus group polling, and field tested the idea of attacking politicians on the topic of ICE support. This should embolden progressive candidates to attack establishment politicians on this issue.

Here is a longish article on AIPAC and the NJ special election for more details. Also, Ryan Grimm has a great summary in the first third of this video. It looks like Breaking Points covers this election again today, but I haven’t had a chance to watch the new episode yet.

Glad I could help! 🙋‍♂️

I think it is you who still doesn’t comprehend what they were saying. They weren’t getting sassy with me, they were making a joke while thanking me for the explaination. They made that perfectly clear in the later response.

The first question obviously wasn’t a serious question, but they were clearly confused about who AIPAC was funding.

No AIPAC did not accidentally fund the progressive. Instead they accidentally went after the moderate with the best chances of winning. I was happy to clear that up.

Please re-read the exchange. I clearly and concisly answered the primary question, which is about what happened in regard to AIPAC funding in the election.

Them:

why does this article end like mid-thought?

You:

You didn’t answer his first question. The primary question he asked

Surely you can’t be serious. Nobody is going to be able able to jump into the author’s brain like that, and it is obviously not a serious “primary” question.

Edit: 🤦‍♂️ I get it now 🤣

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this post (and that’s not my downvote).

Edit: I like your joke and I’m happy I could help. To be fair, I already heard about this AIPAC blunder, so I didn’t need to rely on how this specific article was written.

The non-progressive forerunner dared to say that we might want to reconsider sending unconditional arms to Israel. In response, AIPAC released a series of negative ads against him. This split the non-progressive votes, and cleared the way for the progressive to win.