I'm not sure why you assume liberals are on the left. Communists and their friends like to say they are, when their other friends aren't saying "Liberals get the bullet too", but I'm not sure why I should trust a communist's view on anything.
If you're willing to work with the hypothesis that liberalism isn't left-wing, can you see why I'd make the points I'd made?
Part of the issue is that left-wing rhetoric doesn't have much in the way of counters to communist ideology. If you're on the left, you're implicitly accepting that communism is the way to go, somehow and some time. Communists end up just having to debate that now is the time for a bunch of premises that the rhetoric is already set up for - it's why lefties in general fold like house of cards in the face of communist proselytism.
As I understand it, "doing their job wrong" in this case includes entering compelled testimony - compelled on the grounds that it would not be used in a prosecution, eliminating any 5th amendment barriers - and then promptly using this compelled testimony in a prosecution.
So yes, it is very much about evidence. It's also about a prosecutor discarding the civil rights of a suspect when inconvenient.
That's not entirely accurate. The film does show F-22s and Black Hawks, but even so, apparently 30 years into the future, nobody's invented anything.
I'm also unsure why humanity is on the ropes from a pack animal on a depopulated planet. Carpett bombing would work, hell, tanks would work - it's noticeable that the film uses humvees and only humvees, presumably to give the pack animals a fair chance. I suspect any tank or APC would shrug the attacks off or grind the pack animals under the treads.
It's just used as a synonym for "bad" at this point.
And I'm sure if and when white people start getting publicly beaten and killed across the country solely because of the colour of their skin these self-same academics will do the pikachu face thing. How could this possibly happen?
understand the world so we can build a better one
This is part of why communists are so destructive. Small-c conservatives wish to make changes - if they wish to make changes at all - by small, measured alterations, evaluating as you go.
Communists, on the other hand, seem to want to much more satisfying experience of knocking every flat in order to build again. It's much more visceral and exciting, so visceral and exciting, in fact, that they never seem to progress beyond the "knocking everything flat" stage in any particularly significant degree. At least until the inevitable Party apparatchiks turn up, execute the useful idiots and impose an old-fashioned, but marginally workable dictatorship.
Nah, it'll have something true about it ... but CNN and friends won't bother with any context or measured, accurate analysis. It seems we're going full Richelieu on this one:
Give me six lines written by the most honourable person alive, and I shall find enough in them to condemn them to the gallows.
I'm not sure why they can't both be right.
Has there been any marxist regime - I'm excluding small self-contained communes because while that may be communism I'm not sure it counts as Marxism to wall yourself off from the outside world rather than attempting to engage with it, if only for the purposes of drowning capitalism in the blood of the workers - that hasn't killed big chunks of the population it's inflicting itself upon?
Honestly, I thought Alexander had left the journalism business. On her own website, the most recent work is undated, the second most recent carries a 2019 timestamp.
I'd figured she was quietly sampling wine in her flat with her cats by now...
do they think the more emotional and crazy they act the more they are correct?
Yes.
They view reality through "lived experience" - they're just not interested in objective facts, only how they affect the aristocracy - so yeah, the more deranged you act about something, the more fellow lefties will care about it.
This is the problem with turning your trade agreement into a supra-national prestige project. Conflicting goals.
Economically, it would seem to make sense to turn Hungary loose - there's a lot of investment required before any chance of return.
Politically ... it's fairly clear Hungary is intended to become a debt colony eventually, they just won't comply for now. So the EU will keep hammering away at it until Hungary makes a mistake and gives the EU the opportunity to annex their economy.
Just to be clear, this law professor simply doesn't support people she disagrees with getting civil rights.
Disagree with her, and it's all on the table.