> And the consolidation of all government data, which continues apace even as Musk steps back, could now be used by the White House to target political opponents or undocumented immigrants, as well as recalcitrant government workers.
I unironically think this was always the plan. There are now guys in the private sphere (Big Balls etc.) that have a more or less intimate understanding of government IT systems/data sources/processes, including sensitive ones, whereas such knowledge was previously reserved for government "lifers".
1.Hague Invasion act was 71-22 in the Senate and 280-138 in the House, with 84 Yes and 116 Nos(edited because I flipped the numbers) from Democrats. Its more or less a consensus US position, not partisan.
2.Even if it did pass, retroactively referring 47 there doesn't scream "law and order" to me, especially when there are actual laws being broken.
> Its more or less a consensus US position, not partisan.
That was the case in 2002, back when the Supreme Court still worked and was reasonably respected, and Congress at least did lip service to follow its duties.
Now, the circumstances have shifted - the Supreme Court is seen as compromised as a result of the Trump appointments plus the corruption scandals surrounding Roberts. Therefore I'm not so sure that the Hague Invasion Act would remain if it were pushed to a vote in a future Democrat-controlled Congress.
> Even if it did pass, retroactively referring 47 there doesn't scream "law and order" to me, especially when there are actual laws being broken.
I agree, the normal course of action should be to put 47th and his goon(er)s through the regular American court system - but I am afraid that the legal system has degraded way too much over the last years from all the political appointments. That's why in Croatia and Serbia we had the ICTY established, there was no trust of fair trials.
In theory, this could be used as the basis for the banning of the party. That said , I don't think the incoming government would allow it as Germany isn't super stable at the moment.
At a minimum, this will be used as the basis for removing any talk of coalitions/joint votes etc within the CDU, so Merz or anyone after him can't attempt to go around the Brandmauer(mind you, this will be enforced by the parties themselves, not via law or anything). You can expect the same thing as with FN/RN in France before the developments within the last 2 years, i.e any right wing party not voting resolutions that are submitted by AfD even if they are 95% identical to what is in their own programme.
I think the likely action is that they will attempt to "purge" the Flügel part of the party, with or without the help of Weidel.For example, Marine Le Pen purged the problematic elements of the old guard of FN by herself and "normalised" the party within 10 years.
> You can expect the same thing as with FN/RN in France before the developments within the last 2 years, i.e any right wing party not voting resolutions that are submitted by AfD even if they are 95% identical to what is in their own programme.
But I think this contributes to the general distrust of the population towards incumbent politicians.
I don't know about Germany, but in France the situation becomes ridiculous to the point of resembling a bunch of kindergarten kids: "I won't vote for your law 'cause I don't like you".
And now, whenever you don't like somebody, they're helpfully some "extremist", so they obviously can't propose anything good.
If everyone's an extremist, that word soon loses its meaning. See: the boy who cried wolf. People are getting tired of this crap and can see trying to outlaw a growing party for "extremism" as a shameless political tactic. Which means actual extremists may go unnoticed.
> If everyone's an extremist, that word soon loses its meaning. See: the boy who cried wolf. People are getting tired of this crap and can see trying to outlaw a growing party for "extremism" as a shameless political tactic. Which means actual extremists may go unnoticed.
What makes you think that the AfD isn't a right-wing extremist party?
Nothing. They could be literally Hitler or literally Gandi for all I know. I'm not in Germany and I don't follow them. The only contact I have is reading French newspapers about how some "far right" party is gaining traction over there. I did note that now that they're gaining more votes, they've become more extremist (according to the same French media). Bonus points for them being considered somewhat "close" to the French RN (which the latter have denied – don't know what that's worth).
My point was rather to note that similar things happen in France, with incumbent politicians trying to convince voters that the French RN is the more extreme the more they gain traction. But pretty much everybody who says anything else than "we should abolish borders and allow any and all immigrants who wish to come" or even "maybe we should do something about crime" is labeled "fascist", "extreme right", etc.
This has been confirmed to me when a French party (LR) which is absolutely not "far right" or anything like that and is actually one of the old "governing" parties, was labeled as such by the left when one of their ministers tried to broach the subject of immigration.
So, I'm skeptical when I see some random mainstream politician, who's party is sinking, call this or that party "extreme right", "fascist", or other loaded terms.
To me this just looks like posturing and name-calling. Nobody tries to prove that this or that party's programme sucks big time on concrete metrics (and they'd actually have a point about the RN). They just appeal to voters' sentiment. Which, after a while, gets old.
This is a lot to say that you have no idea what the AfD situation actually is and haven't looked into any of the intelligence reports or even rhetoric/behavior of the party (leaders).
Also:
> But pretty much everybody who says anything else than "we should abolish borders and allow any and all immigrants who wish to come" or even "maybe we should do something about crime" is labeled "fascist", "extreme right", etc.
> This is a lot to say that you have no idea what the AfD situation actually is and haven't looked into any of the intelligence reports or even rhetoric/behavior of the party (leaders).
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to be skeptical; their skepticism comes from a lack of information, which is wise and healthy. Their comments don't seem to suggest that they are trying to promote "fascist" or "extreme right" ideas, just that they recognize those terms as dog whistles and choose not to respond like a rabid dog. That is especially healthy in outrage politics.
> Bonus points for them being considered somewhat "close" to the French RN (which the latter have denied – don't know what that's worth).
Rassemblement National denied being close to the AfD because of how right-extremist the AfD is. The AfD was thrown out of the far-right group in the EU parliament because other EU far-right parties didn't want to get associated with this right-extremist party.
>It's also effectively a burden placed on the other oligarchs behind Putin, who would love to control a large chunk of a functional economy rather than controlling a large chunk of a banana republic undergoing stagflation and being heavily taxed for the privilege.
Russian oligarchs now have close to 0 political power. Those that do are related to army/secret services anyway and will have more to lose if the system goes away. All those oligarchs just ate massive drops in wealth and didn't do anything.
This is by far the biggest misunderstanding that people in the West have: The Russian/Putinist system is now MORE stable than before 24 February 2022, not less.
> Know/practice rucking with 50kg for a 20km brisk walk (maintain speed 7-8 km/h) on uneven terrain, and no water (speak to your doctor first)
Ermm..... This is so far beyond basic militarytraining. Did you mean 5kg? And no water? There are special forces units that wouldn't be able to do this.
Full kit loadout is like 20 kilos, maybe 25-30 if you are the LMG/Nlaw carrier in your unit.
>Fast for 3-4 days (just to see what it feels like)(speak to your doctor first)
>Thirst for 1-2 days (just to see what it feels like)(speak to your doctor first)
No water for 2 days is MUCH worse than no food for 4.
> Water
Yes. I can easily fast for 4-5 days once a month with no problem. Water, I've only done it a 3-4 times in my life, just to see how I react on it. I 'imagine' (not really) the scenarion of being in some country that is frequently earthquake-struck and being without access to water because of damaged infrastructure, etc. Again, the purpose is to know one's limits and _not_ to harm oneself.
How many people live in such zones where strong earthquake are frequent, and they have the real/possible risk of being trapped under some rubble for 1-2-3 days without access to food or water? Knowing your limits and not panicking helps.
>50kg
What if you got a kid and you new to carry it for some distance? What if you have to kill an animal and bring it back to chop it and eat it? Again, the purpose is to do it a couple of times in your life to know what you can and cannot do. Not ruin your spine aimlessly.
I never wrote "do it every week for the fun of it". This is more like 'do it once in your life so you know what thirst feels like'. Knowing one's limits, _without_ putting your life at risk is good in life. I foresaw silly/scary/scared responses thus the 'speak to your doc'.
The comment of yours is likely in good spirit, but it mixes reasonable things with completely outlandish ones.
From experience, averaging 8 km/h for 2.5 h with 50 kg on the back is just not possible for most people, and likely not for you or me either. Doing it in uneven terrain sounds completely unrealistic no matter how fit you are.
Just suggest something realistic instead, like 20 kg and 5 km/h in easy terrain for healthy people, and and least it would be something possible to discuss.
Going 4 days without food is something you can absolutely try if you like, if you are healthy or otherwise secure. But going 2 days compeltely without water is stupid. Don't do it on purpose, ever, no matter how fit you think you are.
It's not extremely difficult(I mean for the most important results like Yamada-Watanabe, Girsanov, etc) if you have a good grasp on measure theory. That said, without that grasp this topic is very hellish.
The main problem for people is understanding intuitively what "quadratic variation" actually is and how that factors into the difference between a normal Riemann integral and a stochastic integral.
> not extremely difficult... if you have a good grasp on measure theory
If this were Reddit I would paste the "You got into Harvard Law? - Elle Woods" meme.
Ok it's not that hard - I did an independent study of Oksendahl in my junior year before my first measure theory class and understood most of it ok. But then again I didn't have to take exams on the material lol.
IMO no. Russian conditions for a ceasefire have been pretty clear: There should be a concrete idea of the starting positions for negotiations, and what the sides will be negotiating over. The current starting positions are still incredibly far apart.
He wants to defund U.S. support for Ukraine, but isn't can't directly own his decision like an adult, and so has to stage this baloney conflict of a press conference.
Weakness. Trump looked like the weakest negotiator I’ve ever seen in this exchange. He looks so powerless. He’s taking his frustration out on Zelenski since Musk has completely taken over his role in the US.
They are also weak. And they've learned that aggression compensates for weakness, but in reality weakness is what leads to the aggression.
His supporters believe in many lies because they've been brainwashed. Things will continue to degrade until an counter agent is developed for this insanity.
On Twitter, it's common to find populist-right commentators say things like:
1. Supporting Ukraine against Russia is risking WW3
2. Zelensky is always asking for more, more more and is SO disrespectful to the generous United States. And he doesn't even show up in a suit when meeting the president. How disgraceful. etc. etc.
These points were both touched upon by the Trump/Vance tag team and that's no coincidence.
My respect for Zelensky, the only decent politician in that room. Ukraine is lucky to have him in a time like this.
You don't have to ask this sort of question. He literally says it in the discussion. He wanted to show the world Zelensky's attitude. And he was successful in doing so
Trump failed to make the deal, they tried to get resources for a minimum of involvement, and the deal didn't go through because Zelensky is adamant in wanting to protect Ukrainian integrity.
From Trump's perspective this puts him in a good light. He is attempting to negotiate rationally and Zelensky is irrationally spending Ukrainian lives to hold on to an ideal.
Of course Europe and many Americans believe in that ideal and would support Ukraine, but that's not Trump's political platform. His motivation is to end the war, and the easiest way to end the war is to yield to Putin's demands. Making Zelensky look unreasonable is a critical part of that.
It's not an idea. It's the law. Everyone agreed to it.
Aggressive war is proscribed in the UN Charter. Starting a war to expand borders or subjugate people is untenable. The right to conquest is obsolete.
Returning to that time is absolutely what the Trump regime is asserting on behalf of Americans. And Americans should be vary wary of returning to a time prior to the two world wars as if the lessons learned should now be dismissed or unlearned. We do this and we guarantee there will be one or more world wars again. More wars of conquest, again. More wars of aggression, again. A return to might makes right. Not law.
A republic is an empire of laws, not men. We follow Trumpism, and we return to an entirely familiar and more chaotic world than what we have had.
Not one fucking square meter of Ukraine should go to Russia. There already is a negotiation and a treaty that said the very goddamn thing that's happening would not happen. So why trust untrustworthy liars by giving them land, with a piece of paper that means less than nothing?
You know what is "holding onto an ideal"? Negotiation with Russia.
I agree with your rant, but it's not relevant to this thread. GP asked a question about how Trump's behavior could be explained and I explained it. If you can't understand someone's behavior and you think everything they do is dumb or evil, you've shut your brain off and the world will keep catching you off guard.
The only recent historical comparison I can think of -- and it's a weak one compared to today's meeting -- was when Obama firmly reiterated to Netanyahu his insistence on the 1967 lines as the basis for a two state solution, and Netanyahu in front of the cameras forcefully rejecting that to Obama's face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l28xJitnP78
Maybe, but Trump's base is actually tiny, only about 22% of the US voters. This will strongly alienate the other 78% of Americans, not to mention 100% of America's allies. And America's enemies now see how grossly inept he actually is at negotiation, revealing that only physical threats will register with him. NOT a good development for America.
An insanely counterproductive ploy, but typical of Trump's 'gangsterism rules' philosophy of leadership.
>This will strongly alienate the other 78% of Americans
It will strongly alienate the subsection of the other 78% of Americans who learn of it and care. I suspect that's nowhere near 100% of them, and I'd be shocked if it was over 30%
I unironically think this was always the plan. There are now guys in the private sphere (Big Balls etc.) that have a more or less intimate understanding of government IT systems/data sources/processes, including sensitive ones, whereas such knowledge was previously reserved for government "lifers".
reply