This idea that “criminal” is some kind of basic aspect of someone’s being rather than being a status wholly controlled by the government, who can impose or remove it at will, is mind-boggling. And also probably explains a lot of how conservatives keep finding themselves in the jaws of the leopard.
I mean, it sounds like they did ask how much it would cost, he just bulldozed through the question instead of seriously engaging with it and legacy media is too chickenshit to report it as “Trump apathetic about costs of deportation plan” or “Mass Deportation to Cost Billions Despite Trump’s Claims” because putting the things he says in context makes him sound like the madman he is and apparently truth is no longer sufficient defense from defamation.
Wait hang on you only read 2? I’m disappointed, I put a solid fifteen minutes into googling to find those 11 separate links.
I hadn’t thought about it in those terms, but this makes a lot of sense. Especially in a 2-party system the election is inevitably going to be a vibe check on the status quo as much as it is a specific election focusing on specific candidates and policies. I’d like to look more closely at the margins to get a feel for whether the Republicans could have run a ham sandwich and still been successful as opposed to the specific appeal of Trumpism.
Not that that changes how rough the next 4 years are going to get for a lot of people.
What constitutes a terrorist organization is up to the electric officials and police organizations to define.
That’s kind of the point, mate. In the current political climate I half expect them to start describing any organization giving humanitarian aid to Palestinians as terrorists.
But to ask the real questions: is providing material support to terrorists not already a crime in Sweden? Does having a Swedish criminal record not complicate eg visa renewals and make it harder for someone to stay in or return to the country? Assuming that’s the case, why is this something that needs to be specially handled now? Is this actually a problem, or just a way to stoke racism and fear for political benefit?
So the difference is not whether they’re trying to be imperialists, but in their relative ability to do so. I’m sure there’s some fascinating and useful graduate level historical analysis to be done in understanding why Russification was relatively unsuccessful, but that doesn’t change the fact that Russia has time and again attempted to impose Russian culture, Russian language, and Russian law on parts of the Russian empire that were very happily doing their own thing.
I would fucking love to throw that man in prison for one of his dozens of crimes, but I also recognize that I don’t have the power to do that. I do have some small amount of power over whether or not he goes into the fucking white house.
Yeah, though in his (incredibly lukewarm) defense he seemed more interested in the batshit crazy aliens-control-the-government theories than the more pedestrian conservative stuff, although the line between the two has greatly narrowed over the years.
So when Ukrainians try to push for closer alignment with the EU it’s a Washington-backed color revolution and thus is no different than Russia rolling into the literal tanks.
Like, even if you’re not a Russian troll you’re still adopting a conspiracy theory that completely ignores any agency the Ukrainian people have.
Honestly I feel like trying to find the root of his bullshit and how specifically it’s so radically off-base is actually kind of an important part of the project Otherwise the follower crowd will just claim that he’s not being given a fair shake, when he was obviously talking about (insert a brief and misleading explanation of the circle thing that actually does try to make it make sense).
That’s what the whole narrative is built on, after al I’ll.
I mean, if you want to trace it back that far you’re talking about the bronze age Canaanites, and arguably through them the Phonecians and Carthaginians would be better successors than the Israelites. If that’s the case then the land should either be under Tunisian administration (for maximum cultural continuity after the fall of Carthage during the Punic wars) or either Turkey or Italy for political continuity through right of successive conquests. Or maybe we want to go with one of the theories about just how far afield the Phonecian diaspora went and consider the state of Utah their most direct modern descendent.
The ancient history of the levant is fascinating, but in the context of the current conflict over the nation of Israel it is relevant only in that it is a major part of Israeli nationalist mythmaking. If you want to actually trace who lived in the region thousands of years ago and where they ended up to determine who the “rightful” government should be you’re going to end up in some really goofy places unless you already know what answer you want to get and are seeking justification rather than illumination. Hell, nationalism as a concept only dates back a few hundred years, and before then you’re arguing about the competing claims of kings and empires through descent, conquest, oaths of fealty, and whatever else. Who ruled/owned/managed your land and who you were as a people were far less connected, and using that as a justification for modern government actions honestly sounds like they’re out of actual justifications. It’s just Putin ranting to Tucker Carlson about medieval maps for two hours while Russian troops shell Ukrainian cities.
I think the other important point to add is that evo psych in popular discourse is rarely used to explain alone. Instead it seems to always lead into the naturalistic fallacy as an explanation for why the world can’t or shouldn’t be kinder, more humane, or less authoritarian. Add on to this that the people making these arguments are usually pretty out of touch with the actual archaeological record about their supposed environment of evolutionary adaptiveness and it’s not at all surprising that whatever legitimate insights it may offer are buried under a mountain of bullshit.
Honestly I think a lot of the worst evo psych takes don’t even get as far as hypothesizing or evidence. They fail at the first hurdle of “identify something about the world”. It’s the classic Freudian error of never once asking “hey wait is everyone like this or is it just me?”
Horses were at least marginally less ridiculous before people got involved. Not quite to the same extent as dogs, but compare a steppe horse with a thoroughbred and you’ll see that they’re smaller and hardier. Much better equipped to live, slightly less able to carry fully armored people on their back.
How are you holding them accountable when one of them is still going to be in power? You’re just sacrificing one of the few concrete mechanisms you have to actually make things better. Yeah, a Harris victory doesn’t mean immediate victory in the fight against this atrocity, but a Trump election does mean defeat.
Obligatory plug for calcgpt
I feel like there’s a “law as it currently exists” thing versus the ideal. The law as it currently exists makes it illegal to discriminate based on content. This has historically been an important vector for, say, allowing civil rights activists to send essays to be published in newspapers. But much as it was illegal to deny a gay couple their marriage license, it ought be somehow made illegal to spread damaging lies about trans people in order to stir up a hate campaign.
In this case I’d say that 5 days fully paid suspension is probably an appropriate consequence for this rule-breaking, and could only be made more appropriate if it actually included tickets to spend those days someplace warmer and friendlier than that part of Canada and a knowing wink from the postmaster general.
One doesn’t invade the largest country in the world. Ask Afghanistan and Finland how resisting a Soviet invasion went. all that land mass only helps if the enemy is trying to capture it.