Is the USA in decline?

Valcazar · Sep 10, 2026

nottyboi said:
No the women and the abuses were all the same plot against Assange.

Well, foolish of me to hold out hope, I guess.

The women served 2 purposes, discredit him via #metoo and get him detained so he could no flee to a safe country before US indictments were ready.

And they chose that weak-ass way to do that when they could make up anything?

The UK could have guaranteed 3rd no further extradition beyond Sweden, but they did not.

I guess on some vague level they could have given that word, like a plea deal, but what government ever would sight unseen?
There is a whole extradition process, and "oh, we won't follow that, we're just gonna refuse" is pretty corrupt.

Also he was not charged of ANY crime and was held in a hellhole while fighting extradition. So the Brits being US lackeys clearly were in on it.

The Brits charged him with breaching his bail conditions.
That's a crime.

You think the Ecuadorians would protect someone from rape charges alone? The UK said they would only extradite him if they were guaranteed he would not be treated inhumanely. Then it proceeded to treat him inhumanely.

And yet none of that later behavior means the women's complaints were made up.
That's just you joining Frank with the "if they are against the US and Israel, then obviously bitchez be lyin" thing.

Valcazar · Sep 10, 2026

Frankfooter said:
It all depends on the details that aren't in the report. If the evidence is only victim testimony, then there is 'evidence' but its not enough to prove a case.
I'm sure they acted with more caution than they would for a legal case, but that doesn't mean that the evidence proved anything.

Got it.
You haven't seen the evidence, but the fact the majority of the people who have all agree it is credible means you are comfortable assuming it is all just victim testimony.
You know, like the kind that E Jean Carroll won with against Trump.
That also wasn't enough to prove a criminal case.

So I guess you've switched sides and decided Trump didn't do it now?

The Germany case is related, its over weapons sales to Israel after the ICJ warnings and ICC charges.

Incorrect.
The Germany case is about weapons sales, yes.
The ICC charges aren't part of it.(Besides, it was filed before the ICC charges.)

Frankfooter · Sep 10, 2026

Valcazar said:
Got it.
You haven't seen the evidence, but the fact the majority of the people who have all agree it is credible means you are comfortable assuming it is all just victim testimony.
You know, like the kind that E Jean Carroll won with against Trump.
That also wasn't enough to prove a criminal case.

So I guess you've switched sides and decided Trump didn't do it now?

Not everyone said it was credible.
E Jean Carroll relied on trump testimony and 'grab them by the pussy' recordings.

Incorrect.
The Germany case is about weapons sales, yes.
The ICC charges aren't part of it.(Besides, it was filed before the ICC charges.)

I haven't been following it that closely.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2096935765318181032

nottyboi · Sep 10, 2026

Valcazar said:
Well, foolish of me to hold out hope, I guess.

And they chose that weak-ass way to do that when they could make up anything?

I guess on some vague level they could have given that word, like a plea deal, but what government ever would sight unseen?
There is a whole extradition process, and "oh, we won't follow that, we're just gonna refuse" is pretty corrupt.

The Brits charged him with breaching his bail conditions.
That's a crime.

And yet none of that later behavior means the women's complaints were made up.
That's just you joining Frank with the "if they are against the US and Israel, then obviously bitchez be lyin" thing.

Why is that a weak ass way? It serves 2 purposes. It discredits him and prevents him from leaving the UK. Its not a weak ass way. Its a very effective way to achive both purposes with a crime that society has deemed that even if you are found not guilty you are a a creep. Breaching bail conditions by seeking asylum is hardly a violent crime that threatens society, It hardly warrants extra judicial torture. They were trying to break him. Why would the UK not guarantee the non-extradition unless they knew it was likely gonna be requested? The rape charges were a smokescreen.

countd · Sep 11, 2026

Frankfooter · Sep 11, 2026

america is declining faster than trump's dementia

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2098444221510250948

Valcazar · Sep 12, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Not everyone said it was credible.
E Jean Carroll relied on trump testimony and 'grab them by the pussy' recordings.

Yes.
That's all testimony.
Just like here, where they did a bunch of interviews and investigations.

I haven't been following it that closely.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2096935765318181032

I expect it to be very boring and technical, since it looks like Germany is going to spend a lot of time trying to argue that the case can't be brought in the first place.

Klatuu · Sep 12, 2026

Bring on those MAGA midterms.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2098667662310092943

Frankfooter · Sep 12, 2026

Valcazar said:
Yes.
That's all testimony.
Just like here, where they did a bunch of interviews and investigations.

Except that in that case we heard the testimony and who said it.
In this one all we have are the reports.

I expect it to be very boring and technical, since it looks like Germany is going to spend a lot of time trying to argue that the case can't be brought in the first place.

Yup

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2097755040052076728

Reec · Sep 12, 2026

The US is certainly dragging Canada down with it, with how Canadians are brainwashed to be over-reliant on the imperial system.

Case in point: A Battle of the Generations contestant who thought that 280 cm is a realistic human height

The show’s questions are meant to test pop culture knowledge, so the fact that they unintentionally exposed a Canadian contestant’s metric system blind spot just shows how much Canadians have fallen and it is just sad

Valcazar · Sep 12, 2026

nottyboi said:
Why is that a weak ass way? It serves 2 purposes. It discredits him and prevents him from leaving the UK.

It didn't prevent him from leaving the UK.
He did that.
Remember, he left Sweden after they started investigating.
The women didn't trap him.

Its not a weak ass way. Its a very effective way to achive both purposes with a crime that society has deemed that even if you are found not guilty you are a a creep.

Only it doesn't.
Being accused of something like this, especially back in 2010, does next to nothing to a man's career.
And if you are going to do that, you do it with a substantial accusation of a sex crime.
Remember how easily people started just saying he was prosecuted for a condom breaking?

If you are out to wreck his reputation, you put some meat on the bone.

But here's the problem, your entire argument boils down to "People were out to get Assange, therefore it is impossible he ever did anything wrong."
You see how silly that is, right?
It's the same as Frank's "but this guy caused problems for Israel, therefore he cannot have done anything".

Breaching bail conditions by seeking asylum is hardly a violent crime that threatens society, It hardly warrants extra judicial torture. They were trying to break him. Why would the UK not guarantee the non-extradition unless they knew it was likely gonna be requested? The rape charges were a smokescreen.

Why do you want Assange to get treatment no one else gets regarding extradition?
Why would Assange have thought he was safer in the UK from being extradited than in Sweden?

Please note I'm not defending anything about how the UK handled his imprisonment or the eventual US trial and the godawful plea bargain that resulted.

Valcazar · Sep 12, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Except that in that case we heard the testimony and who said it.
In this one all we have are the reports.

Yes.
It wasn't a trial.
All we have are the summaries of the reports and the actions of the people who saw the reports and the evidence.

These people overwhelmingly reached the conclusion he had committed a serious breach and should be removed from his position.

Yup

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2097755040052076728

This is what you would expect.
First round, try to get things thrown out on procedure.
Pretty typical trial behavior.

Frankfooter · Sep 12, 2026

Valcazar said:
Got it.
You haven't seen the evidence, but the fact the majority of the people who have all agree it is credible means you are comfortable assuming it is all just victim testimony.
You know, like the kind that E Jean Carroll won with against Trump.
That also wasn't enough to prove a criminal case.

So I guess you've switched sides and decided Trump didn't do it now?

Carroll won a legal case against trump in the public with public evidence.
This was not a trial, evidence was not public and there were no charges of criminal acts.
You don't know if there was legit evidence or not either.

Incorrect.
The Germany case is about weapons sales, yes.
The ICC charges aren't part of it.(Besides, it was filed before the ICC charges.)

But after the ICJ stating that countries had a duty to not aid Israel.

Valcazar · Sep 12, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Carroll won a legal case against trump in the public with public evidence.
This was not a trial, evidence was not public and there were no charges of criminal acts.
You don't know if there was legit evidence or not either.

I do not.
I have to go on what we can see from how things went.

But after the ICJ stating that countries had a duty to not aid Israel.

If I recall, the ICJ said other nations were obliged not to render aid or assistance in maintaining Israel’s presence in the territory.
Germany's argument is going to be that this does not mean "no aid to Israel".
Of course, since money and goods are fungible, the counter argument is "any aid to Israel in any way is aid in helping them maintain the occupation".

That's what this is likely to hinge on and the fact international law mostly rejects the latter argument means it is going to depend a lot on what aid Germany sent and other details.

Frankfooter · Sep 12, 2026

Valcazar said:
I do not.

Exactly.

If I recall, the ICJ said other nations were obliged not to render aid or assistance in maintaining Israel’s presence in the territory.
Germany's argument is going to be that this does not mean "no aid to Israel".
Of course, since money and goods are fungible, the counter argument is "any aid to Israel in any way is aid in helping them maintain the occupation".

That's what this is likely to hinge on and the fact international law mostly rejects the latter argument means it is going to depend a lot on what aid Germany sent and other details.

The ICJ warnings on genocide were before the ICC charges. They declared the charges of genocide to be 'plausible' and said no state should aid a plausible genocide.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2098333275898966121

squeezer · Sep 12, 2026

Chris Cuomo DISMANTLES Jim Jordan Over Trump's $5,000 Bribe Promise!

nottyboi · Sep 12, 2026

Valcazar said:
It didn't prevent him from leaving the UK.
He did that.
Remember, he left Sweden after they started investigating.
The women didn't trap him.

Only it doesn't.
Being accused of something like this, especially back in 2010, does next to nothing to a man's career.
And if you are going to do that, you do it with a substantial accusation of a sex crime.
Remember how easily people started just saying he was prosecuted for a condom breaking?

If you are out to wreck his reputation, you put some meat on the bone.

But here's the problem, your entire argument boils down to "People were out to get Assange, therefore it is impossible he ever did anything wrong."
You see how silly that is, right?
It's the same as Frank's "but this guy caused problems for Israel, therefore he cannot have done anything".

Why do you want Assange to get treatment no one else gets regarding extradition?
Why would Assange have thought he was safer in the UK from being extradited than in Sweden?

Please note I'm not defending anything about how the UK handled his imprisonment or the eventual US trial and the godawful plea bargain that resulted.

Of course it did, the first he heard of it was when an European Arrest warrant was issued for him. How do you propose he leave Europe without getting arrested?

What crazy alternative reality were you living in back in 2010 where a sexual assault did nothing to a mans reputation lol. There were a lot of contradiction in testimony, texts that indicated that the women did consent and had ulterior motives. He did not feel safer in the UK once this came out that is why he fought the extradition to buy time while his lawyers worked to show the accusations had no merit. When the Swedes ignored the evidence, it became clear the rape charges were just a cover and he took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Valcazar · Sep 12, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Exactly.

That we both agree about the limitations here makes your whole "he was bad for Israel, therefore bitches be lying" approach all the sadder.

The ICJ warnings on genocide were before the ICC charges. They declared the charges of genocide to be 'plausible' and said no state should aid a plausible genocide.

The ICC charges are completely irrelevant to the ICJ case.
A reminder that the ICJ did not declare the charges of genocide to be plausible.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf

They declared the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide

Former head of ICJ explains ruling on genocide case against Israel brought by S Africa

Joan Donoghue speaks to BBC Hardtalk about the case brought by South Africa to the ICJ over alleged violations of the Genocide Convention by Israel.

www.bbc.com

Implausible Confusion: The Meaning of “Plausibility” in the ICJ’s Provisional Measures

Introduction In its Order of 26 January 2024 in the case of South Africa v. Israel (brought under Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“the Genocide Convention”)), the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) indicated a number of provisional...

www.ejiltalk.org

( “the facts and circumstances mentioned [in the Order] are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible” )

Valcazar · Sep 13, 2026

nottyboi said:
Of course it did, the first he heard of it was when an European Arrest warrant was issued for him.

This is, of course, a lie, as his defence attorney admitted in court.

What crazy alternative reality were you living in back in 2010 where a sexual assault did nothing to a mans reputation lol.

The one where the #MeToo movement was a big deal in 2017 and even then resulted in limited long term effect.

nottyboi · Sep 13, 2026

Valcazar said:
This is, of course, a lie, as his defence attorney admitted in court.

The one where the #MeToo movement was a big deal in 2017 and even then resulted in limited long term effect.

Even then there were not charges and he was dealing with it through his lawyers. Its not as if he was simply ignoring it. When he provided all the texts with the women and they STILL continued with the case, he knew 100% it was not about the sexual assault. Me to already existed as early as 2006, but it exploded in 2017. Being accused of sexual assault or even impropriety was a serious blow to reputation long before that.

Is the USA in decline?

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

dangling member

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine

Well-known member