There's an interesting take in the UK today about the relationship of the courts to the political process. I think that I've briefly mentioned before the court cases going on about the prorogation of Parliament. There was a decision of the High Court in England last week saying that was legal on the grounds that it was a matter for the political process and not the law and there was somewhat similar reasoning on essentially the same case being brought separately in Scotland.
However, the Scottish case was appealed to the Court of Session and the 3 appeal court judges there have unanimously ruled today that the prorogation was unlawful (technically it's just Johnson's advice to the Queen to endorse the prorogation that's unlawful, but let's skip over that for the moment). They took the line that Johnson was motivated by improper ends (the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament") and that this was such an egregious breach that the law should intervene.
The English case was itself being appealed and it's now expected that the Supreme Court will rule on both cases next week. The cases can certainly be argued both ways and I wouldn't be surprised by either outcome. However, I think it is a bit more probable that the Supreme Court will follow the Scottish appeal ruling. That would reinforce the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign (rather than the government of the day) and I suspect the judges will take the line that the constitution needs a bit of reinforcement just at the moment.
That wouldn't be an easy decision given that some Brexiteers have previously shown they are very willing to portray judges as the enemy of the people and attempting to subvert the result of the 2016 referendum. If the Supreme Court does do that, I'll be watching closely to see whether Johnson can bring himself to support the independence of the judiciary or whether he will join in the attacks and go further down the US road of trying to harden the support of a minority in the country rather than seek a broader majority coalition. If he does the former then we can expect a further round of resignations from the considerable number of 'one nation' moderate Conservative MPs.
What I was reading this morning was that the crux of the issue was that Johnson lied to the Queen about his motives and reasoning for dissolving the current session of Parliament. Was this inaccurate??
There's an interesting take in the UK today about the relationship of the courts to the political process. I think that I've briefly mentioned before the court cases going on about the prorogation of Parliament. There was a decision of the High Court in England last week saying that was legal on the grounds that it was a matter for the political process and not the law and there was somewhat similar reasoning on essentially the same case being brought separately in Scotland.
However, the Scottish case was appealed to the Court of Session and the 3 appeal court judges there have unanimously ruled today that the prorogation was unlawful (technically it's just Johnson's advice to the Queen to endorse the prorogation that's unlawful, but let's skip over that for the moment). They took the line that Johnson was motivated by improper ends (the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament") and that this was such an egregious breach that the law should intervene.
The English case was itself being appealed and it's now expected that the Supreme Court will rule on both cases next week. The cases can certainly be argued both ways and I wouldn't be surprised by either outcome. However, I think it is a bit more probable that the Supreme Court will follow the Scottish appeal ruling. That would reinforce the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign (rather than the government of the day) and I suspect the judges will take the line that the constitution needs a bit of reinforcement just at the moment.
That wouldn't be an easy decision given that some Brexiteers have previously shown they are very willing to portray judges as the enemy of the people and attempting to subvert the result of the 2016 referendum. If the Supreme Court does do that, I'll be watching closely to see whether Johnson can bring himself to support the independence of the judiciary or whether he will join in the attacks and go further down the US road of trying to harden the support of a minority in the country rather than seek a broader majority coalition. If he does the former then we can expect a further round of resignations from the considerable number of 'one nation' moderate Conservative MPs.
What I was reading this morning was that the crux of the issue was that Johnson lied to the Queen about his motives and reasoning for dissolving the current session of Parliament. Was this inaccurate??
No, that's correct. The judges were pretty strong in saying that his professed motive (to prepare for a new session of Parliament where the government would outline their proposed program of legislation) was transparently not his main reason for the timing and length of the prorogation.
What was different to the judgments at the courts of first instance though was not whether Johnson lied, but whether that breach of trust should be left purely for the political process to address. The fact that Parliament did pass a law intended to rule out a no deal was accepted as a defense in the previous English judgment ('see - we told you the prorogation would not stop Parliament acting'). As I mentioned before though I think Johnson deliberately allowed that to happen rather than filibustering it out of time as part of his failed plan to get an early election. Today's judgment puts more weight on supporting the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, rather than just looking at what actually happened.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
So close to understanding how much of modern day capitalism is exploitation of human beings.
These GOPers promised they would honor 9/11 but..... They lied.
Just goes to show there's something fundamentally wrong with these people. They are unamerican and the people that vote for these clowns get the circus.
Let them have their own hellworld, I'm sick of my taxpayer dollars propping up red states to save them from themselves. They're determined to live in a corrupt corporate serfdom. Whatever stop dragging us all down with you.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
So close to understanding how much of modern day capitalism is exploitation of human beings.
I certainly agree with him that the vast, vast majority of females don't grow up dreaming of being prostitutes. I also think that if they do happen to be prostitutes, they don't want to be arrested and thrown in jail to force them to change their lifestyle. When we call politicians "whores", it's really kind of insulting to ACTUAL sex workers, who by large are being completely and totally up front with the exchange that is taking place.
Trump fired John Bolton so he just released a picture of his new pick for National Security Advisor.
This new guy will cost less because he's willing to work remotely.
Putin doesn't want confrontation any more than US does. And he's as much concerned about US taking aggressive steps against Russia as US feels about him. In his defense, at least, he does have much more solid ground for concerns, considering how many countries US had attacked and destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria) yet somehow was able to remain in G8 like nothing happened.
Trump fired John Bolton so he just released a picture of his new pick for National Security Advisor.
This new guy will cost less because he's willing to work remotely.
Putin doesn't want confrontation any more than US does. And he's as much concerned about US taking aggressive steps against Russia as US feels about him. In his defense, at least, he does have much more solid ground for concerns, considering how many countries US had attacked and destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria) yet somehow was able to remain in G8 like nothing happened.
US didn’t annex any of these countries or regions. Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria are or was a civil crises. Iraq was stupidity at its finest but still an independent state unlike Crimea which got Russia kicked out.
They’re also out of the G8 because they’re no longer considered a democracy.
I don't remember Russia annexing anything. I do remember a referendum held in Crimea, and you probably also remember a civil crisis in Ukraine just before that, instigated by CIA or NSA or whatever agency is responsible for such operations, which made the results of such referendum most predictable.
I trust you don't seriously think Putin would try grabbing it without knowing he'd meet wide support from local population? Otherwise, by that logic half the Ukraine and Baltic states should already have been a Russian territory
Unless, of course, democracy is only where White House decides it is, like in Kosovo (now a drug hub) but not Crimea.
They’re also out of the G8 because they’re no longer considered a democracy.
Considered by who, the states that confused themselves with world police and supported operations against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria? And just recently tried the same with Venezuela? You'd think that by now there should be plenty of evidence nothing good comes out when they decide to interfere with inner affairs of states in political turmoil :shrug:
PS
but still an independent state unlike Crimea
Crimea wasn't independent in the first place, so nothing changed in that regard.
I don't remember Russia annexing anything. I do remember a referendum held in Crimea, and you probably also remember a civil crisis in Ukraine just before that, instigated by CIA or NSA or whatever agency is responsible for such operations, which made the results of such referendum most predictable.
I trust you don't seriously think Putin would try grabbing it without knowing he'd meet wide support from local population? Otherwise, by that logic half the Ukraine and Baltic states should already have been a Russian territory
Unless, of course, democracy is only where White House decides it is, like in Kosovo (now a drug hub) but not Crimea.
They’re also out of the G8 because they’re no longer considered a democracy.
Considered by who, the states that confused themselves with world police and supported operations against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria? And just recently tried the same with Venezuela? You'd think that by now there should be plenty of evidence nothing good comes out when they decide to interfere with inner affairs of states in political turmoil :shrug:
I’m kinda laughing, but then I also probably think that the propaganda fuelled media would skew both of our views towards completely opposite points of view.
I’ll just state that anything that wins a democratic vote by 97% is a sham. Also, the people of Crimea literally had a gun to their head as they were under Russian occupation at the time. There is a reason why only 11 countries find the referendum valid (opposed to 100 who think it is invalid based off of a UN General Assembly resolution).
I don't remember Russia annexing anything. I do remember a referendum held in Crimea, and you probably also remember a civil crisis in Ukraine just before that, instigated by CIA or NSA or whatever agency is responsible for such operations, which made the results of such referendum most predictable.
I trust you don't seriously think Putin would try grabbing it without knowing he'd meet wide support from local population? Otherwise, by that logic half the Ukraine and Baltic states should already have been a Russian territory
Unless, of course, democracy is only where White House decides it is, like in Kosovo (now a drug hub) but not Crimea.
You're missing a few key details.
A - Russia (and the Soviet Union) signed several treaties that guaranteed the national sovereignty of the Ukraine. Unilaterally putting troops in Ukrainian territory, holding a referendum and then annexing any part of it is by definition a violation of international law.
B - Russia has an incredibly spotty record with respect to holding fair and free elections over the last 15 or so years. So I dont think anyone is making an audacious claim in assuming Putin would do whatever it take to win a referendum in the Crimea.
C - If you read a headline that said "Right-Wing Nationalist nation annexes _____ ethnic territory, citing unconfirmed ethnic violence", you could be forgiven for thinking it was from 1938.
What operation in Venezuela? Vocally supporting one branch of the constitutionally elected government (the legislature) is no different than supporting a separate branch of that government (the presidency). Moreover, Russia is selling weapons to Maduro's government. How is that not equally an "operation against Venezuela"?
I can't believe people sincerely want to marshal that as a point against the US and its allies while apparently Russian involvement doesn't get mentioned at all? It's a rather bald hypocrisy.
I’m kinda laughing, but then I also probably think that the propaganda fuelled media would skew both of our views towards completely opposite points of view.
I’ll just state that anything that wins a democratic vote by 97% is a sham. Also, the people of Crimea literally had a gun to their head as they were under Russian occupation at the time. There is a reason why only 11 countries find the referendum valid (opposed to 100 who think it is invalid based off of a UN General Assembly resolution).
I assure you, the propaganda in Russian media was super strong in 2014. To the point it was almost dangerous to vocally question the legitimacy of Crimean affair. I've been banned a couple times for it, lol. But I laugh very, very hard now at all the people who used to chant "Crimea is ours, those who disagree are national traitors" and now whine at stagnating economy and retirement reforms. Like "told ya stupid morons five ****ing years ago that it'd be like this, so who's the national traitor now, huh?" king of laugh.
Nevertheless, even though I don't buy the 95% result for a second, I do believe those who wanted to become a part of Russia were in majority compared to those who didn't. Same nation, same language, so why the hell not when Ukrainian government wasted its inheritance from USSR (Ukraine was its the most developed country, with nuclear and space-capable industries) and was putting pressure on their native language.
A - Russia (and the Soviet Union) signed several treaties that guaranteed the national sovereignty of the Ukraine. Unilaterally putting troops in Ukrainian territory, holding a referendum and then annexing any part of it is by definition a violation of international law.
B - Russia has an incredibly spotty record with respect to holding fair and free elections over the last 15 or so years. So I dont think anyone is making an audacious claim in assuming Putin would do whatever it take to win a referendum in the Crimea.
C - If you read a headline that said "Right-Wing Nationalist nation annexes _____ ethnic territory, citing unconfirmed ethnic violence", you could be forgiven for thinking it was from 1938.
A - Yugoslavia.
B - Even though I consider myself more knowledgeable of internal American affairs than you of Russian - for simple reason, I can read what's being discussed e.g. here (among the many other places), but how many can access what's happening in Russian infospace? - I do share the sentiment, which is why I didn't readily buy the 95% figure. But see above, despite that it's reasonable to assume the referendum did coincide with local populace's desires.
C - Sure. But you're missing the fact right-wing nationalism had already existed in Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector, and was actively trying to establish itself as actual authority (with partial success).
What operation in Venezuela? Vocally supporting one branch of the constitutionally elected government (the legislature) is no different than supporting a separate branch of that government (the presidency). Moreover, Russia is selling weapons to Maduro's government. How is that not equally an "operation against Venezuela"?
I can't believe people sincerely want to marshal that as a point against the US and its allies while apparently Russian involvement doesn't get mentioned at all? It's a rather bald hypocrisy.
Pretty sure Trump mentioned something about sending in troops, though it could've been his usual style. If you need to know, I've been pro-Guaido, simply because Maduro had plenty of opportunity to fix the country - even despite the lasting sanctions - and still only managed to make it worse. But recent history has been rather illustrative of what happens when democratic world starts supporting the dethronement of an authoritarian - blood and chaos. I can't, in good conscience, qualify it as an improvement of any kind.
A - Yugoslavia.
B - Even though I consider myself more knowledgeable of internal American affairs than you of Russian - for simple reason, I can read what's being discussed e.g. here (among the many other places), but how many can access what's happening in Russian infospace? - I do share the sentiment, which is why I didn't readily buy the 95% figure. But see above, despite that it's reasonable to assume the referendum did coincide with local populace's desires.
C - Sure. But you're missing the fact right-wing nationalism had already existed in Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector, and was actively trying to establish itself as actual authority (with partial success).
Yugoslavia has nothing to do with Russia's violation of Ukraine's national sovereignty and the unlawful annexation of the Crimea.
The problem with this argument is: I'm not defending any of America's actions. I am, however, pointing out that Russia's actions are unlawful with respect to treaties they themselves signed.
I do not believe it's reasonable to assume that the referendum coincided with the local population's desires simply because absent any useful data, we shouldnt make conclusions either way. I can see an argument for why Crimea would want to be a part of Russia, but I can also see an argument for why they'd want to be part of Ukraine. Without data to back up either argument, they're pretty much useless.
Russia had the chance to offer up that data by holding a fair and free vote. They chose not to, and so we should not view that referendum to mean much.
There's an interesting take in the UK today about the relationship of the courts to the political process. I think that I've briefly mentioned before the court cases going on about the prorogation of Parliament. There was a decision of the High Court in England last week saying that was legal on the grounds that it was a matter for the political process and not the law and there was somewhat similar reasoning on essentially the same case being brought separately in Scotland.
However, the Scottish case was appealed to the Court of Session and the 3 appeal court judges there have unanimously ruled today that the prorogation was unlawful (technically it's just Johnson's advice to the Queen to endorse the prorogation that's unlawful, but let's skip over that for the moment). They took the line that Johnson was motivated by improper ends (the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament") and that this was such an egregious breach that the law should intervene.
The English case was itself being appealed and it's now expected that the Supreme Court will rule on both cases next week. The cases can certainly be argued both ways and I wouldn't be surprised by either outcome. However, I think it is a bit more probable that the Supreme Court will follow the Scottish appeal ruling. That would reinforce the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign (rather than the government of the day) and I suspect the judges will take the line that the constitution needs a bit of reinforcement just at the moment.
That wouldn't be an easy decision given that some Brexiteers have previously shown they are very willing to portray judges as the enemy of the people and attempting to subvert the result of the 2016 referendum. If the Supreme Court does do that, I'll be watching closely to see whether Johnson can bring himself to support the independence of the judiciary or whether he will join in the attacks and go further down the US road of trying to harden the support of a minority in the country rather than seek a broader majority coalition. If he does the former then we can expect a further round of resignations from the considerable number of 'one nation' moderate Conservative MPs.
What I was reading this morning was that the crux of the issue was that Johnson lied to the Queen about his motives and reasoning for dissolving the current session of Parliament. Was this inaccurate??
No, that's correct. The judges were pretty strong in saying that his professed motive (to prepare for a new session of Parliament where the government would outline their proposed program of legislation) was transparently not his main reason for the timing and length of the prorogation.
What was different to the judgments at the courts of first instance though was not whether Johnson lied, but whether that breach of trust should be left purely for the political process to address. The fact that Parliament did pass a law intended to rule out a no deal was accepted as a defense in the previous English judgment ('see - we told you the prorogation would not stop Parliament acting'). As I mentioned before though I think Johnson deliberately allowed that to happen rather than filibustering it out of time as part of his failed plan to get an early election. Today's judgment puts more weight on supporting the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, rather than just looking at what actually happened.
It's perhaps worth noting that multiple cases were going on, all appeals ending up at the Supreme Court (which is quite new in the UK). Each case had a slightly different emphasis, and there are differences in the legal principles being applied too. The Scottish judges are applying principles drawn from continental ideas, and are less deferential than the other courts to the power of the royal prerogative that backs up the executive. (The Northern Ireland case focused more on the Good Friday agreement.)
The problem here of course is that the Union itself is increasingly seen as a problem by some English voters, which in turn stokes independence movements. The backstop isn't taken seriously, Scottish judges are seen as interfering... So an attempt to secede from the EU tends toward the break up of the UK itself.
The election slogans are starting to write themselves: "Boris Johnson lied to the Queen, his only brother doesn't trust him, how are we supposed to?" The Liberal Democrats meanwhile are heading for revoke and "Make It Stop".
I’m kinda laughing, but then I also probably think that the propaganda fuelled media would skew both of our views towards completely opposite points of view.
I’ll just state that anything that wins a democratic vote by 97% is a sham. Also, the people of Crimea literally had a gun to their head as they were under Russian occupation at the time. There is a reason why only 11 countries find the referendum valid (opposed to 100 who think it is invalid based off of a UN General Assembly resolution).
I assure you, the propaganda in Russian media was super strong in 2014. To the point it was almost dangerous to vocally question the legitimacy of Crimean affair. I've been banned a couple times for it, lol. But I laugh very, very hard now at all the people who used to chant "Crimea is ours, those who disagree are national traitors" and now whine at stagnating economy and retirement reforms. Like "told ya stupid morons five ****ing years ago that it'd be like this, so who's the national traitor now, huh?" king of laugh.
Nevertheless, even though I don't buy the 95% result for a second, I do believe those who wanted to become a part of Russia were in majority compared to those who didn't. Same nation, same language, so why the hell not when Ukrainian government wasted its inheritance from USSR (Ukraine was its the most developed country, with nuclear and space-capable industries) and was putting pressure on their native language.
A - Russia (and the Soviet Union) signed several treaties that guaranteed the national sovereignty of the Ukraine. Unilaterally putting troops in Ukrainian territory, holding a referendum and then annexing any part of it is by definition a violation of international law.
B - Russia has an incredibly spotty record with respect to holding fair and free elections over the last 15 or so years. So I dont think anyone is making an audacious claim in assuming Putin would do whatever it take to win a referendum in the Crimea.
C - If you read a headline that said "Right-Wing Nationalist nation annexes _____ ethnic territory, citing unconfirmed ethnic violence", you could be forgiven for thinking it was from 1938.
A - Yugoslavia.
B - Even though I consider myself more knowledgeable of internal American affairs than you of Russian - for simple reason, I can read what's being discussed e.g. here (among the many other places), but how many can access what's happening in Russian infospace? - I do share the sentiment, which is why I didn't readily buy the 95% figure. But see above, despite that it's reasonable to assume the referendum did coincide with local populace's desires.
C - Sure. But you're missing the fact right-wing nationalism had already existed in Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector, and was actively trying to establish itself as actual authority (with partial success).
What operation in Venezuela? Vocally supporting one branch of the constitutionally elected government (the legislature) is no different than supporting a separate branch of that government (the presidency). Moreover, Russia is selling weapons to Maduro's government. How is that not equally an "operation against Venezuela"?
I can't believe people sincerely want to marshal that as a point against the US and its allies while apparently Russian involvement doesn't get mentioned at all? It's a rather bald hypocrisy.
Pretty sure Trump mentioned something about sending in troops, though it could've been his usual style. If you need to know, I've been pro-Guaido, simply because Maduro had plenty of opportunity to fix the country - even despite the lasting sanctions - and still only managed to make it worse. But recent history has been rather illustrative of what happens when democratic world starts supporting the dethronement of an authoritarian - blood and chaos. I can't, in good conscience, qualify it as an improvement of any kind.
Well, since the Tatars were removed by the Russians decades ago, you're probably right that the current inhabitants would vote for inclusion in Russia. Kind of like how Karelia would have voted to become part of Finland if the Soviets had lost WW2. Also like that spit of land around 'Königsberg' would vote to stay Russian now. Nothing like moving out everybody who lives there and replacing them with your own to make sure the vote doesn't go against you...
The problem here of course is that the Union itself is increasingly seen as a problem by some English voters, which in turn stokes independence movements. The backstop isn't taken seriously, Scottish judges are seen as interfering... So an attempt to secede from the EU tends toward the break up of the UK itself.
I agree this is looking more and more likely. Recent polling evidence suggests a clear majority of Scots would vote for independence, while there is now a narrow majority in Northern Ireland that think reunification will happen.
It's often forgotten that the backstop so hated by the Brexiteers was designed by the UK and only reluctantly accepted by the EU (the problem for them is that it provides a back door into the single market). The fundamental reason for the backstop covering the whole of the UK rather than just Northern Ireland was Theresa May's concerns about the possibility of pushing people into voting for Irish reunification. Some of those in the current UK government have recently been floating the idea once more of a compromise position with a Northern Ireland only backstop - and for the first time today sources in the DUP have suggested they would be willing to look at some form of this. I don't think that change would halt the growing desire (among younger voters, as well as nationalists) to leave the UK.
While far weaker than in other countries, the Brexit debate has also helped spark a little bit of debate about independence even in Wales - see this article for instance. On the face of it that may seem odd - Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted heavily to remain, but there was a majority for leave in Wales. However, since the referendum the UK government has paid little attention to the impact of their proposals on devolved governments. That lack of consultation has been the subject of a Scottish court case, but it's also been very irritating to the Welsh government. The possible implications of no deal are also of concern to some groups, e.g. Welsh farmers.
I’m kinda laughing, but then I also probably think that the propaganda fuelled media would skew both of our views towards completely opposite points of view.
I’ll just state that anything that wins a democratic vote by 97% is a sham. Also, the people of Crimea literally had a gun to their head as they were under Russian occupation at the time. There is a reason why only 11 countries find the referendum valid (opposed to 100 who think it is invalid based off of a UN General Assembly resolution).
I assure you, the propaganda in Russian media was super strong in 2014. To the point it was almost dangerous to vocally question the legitimacy of Crimean affair. I've been banned a couple times for it, lol. But I laugh very, very hard now at all the people who used to chant "Crimea is ours, those who disagree are national traitors" and now whine at stagnating economy and retirement reforms. Like "told ya stupid morons five ****ing years ago that it'd be like this, so who's the national traitor now, huh?" king of laugh.
Nevertheless, even though I don't buy the 95% result for a second, I do believe those who wanted to become a part of Russia were in majority compared to those who didn't. Same nation, same language, so why the hell not when Ukrainian government wasted its inheritance from USSR (Ukraine was its the most developed country, with nuclear and space-capable industries) and was putting pressure on their native language.
A - Russia (and the Soviet Union) signed several treaties that guaranteed the national sovereignty of the Ukraine. Unilaterally putting troops in Ukrainian territory, holding a referendum and then annexing any part of it is by definition a violation of international law.
B - Russia has an incredibly spotty record with respect to holding fair and free elections over the last 15 or so years. So I dont think anyone is making an audacious claim in assuming Putin would do whatever it take to win a referendum in the Crimea.
C - If you read a headline that said "Right-Wing Nationalist nation annexes _____ ethnic territory, citing unconfirmed ethnic violence", you could be forgiven for thinking it was from 1938.
A - Yugoslavia.
B - Even though I consider myself more knowledgeable of internal American affairs than you of Russian - for simple reason, I can read what's being discussed e.g. here (among the many other places), but how many can access what's happening in Russian infospace? - I do share the sentiment, which is why I didn't readily buy the 95% figure. But see above, despite that it's reasonable to assume the referendum did coincide with local populace's desires.
C - Sure. But you're missing the fact right-wing nationalism had already existed in Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector, and was actively trying to establish itself as actual authority (with partial success).
What operation in Venezuela? Vocally supporting one branch of the constitutionally elected government (the legislature) is no different than supporting a separate branch of that government (the presidency). Moreover, Russia is selling weapons to Maduro's government. How is that not equally an "operation against Venezuela"?
I can't believe people sincerely want to marshal that as a point against the US and its allies while apparently Russian involvement doesn't get mentioned at all? It's a rather bald hypocrisy.
Pretty sure Trump mentioned something about sending in troops, though it could've been his usual style. If you need to know, I've been pro-Guaido, simply because Maduro had plenty of opportunity to fix the country - even despite the lasting sanctions - and still only managed to make it worse. But recent history has been rather illustrative of what happens when democratic world starts supporting the dethronement of an authoritarian - blood and chaos. I can't, in good conscience, qualify it as an improvement of any kind.
Well, since the Tatars were removed by the Russians decades ago, you're probably right that the current inhabitants would vote for inclusion in Russia. Kind of like how Karelia would have voted to become part of Finland if the Soviets had lost WW2. Also like that spit of land around 'Königsberg' would vote to stay Russian now. Nothing like moving out everybody who lives there and replacing them with your own to make sure the vote doesn't go against you...
"Divide et impera" has always worked. Stalin had taken great care to distribute Russian population in territories populated by other ethnicities, like Kazakhstan etc.
Similar conflicts happen everywhere in Europe, because nations are comparatively small and borders have moved frequently.
Slovakia has a southern region with a relatively large Hungarian minority, which Orban tried to claim, Transsylvania is considered Romanian by Romanians and Hungarian by Hungarians, the region Alsace changed from French to German and back, many Scots and Catalans would like independence, but a referendum includes English (or Spanish, respectively) citizens who live there...
Same same, but different.
The huge difference being the use of military, or paramilitary, force by Russia in case of disagreement.
Besides, if Russia feels a referendum in Crimea was legitimate, why not allow the same thing in Chechnya or other regions?
I see no problem with secession. If 95% of region "A" wanna "X" and 95% of region "B" wanna "Y", decentralization and secession is a way to please the majority.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
So close to understanding how much of modern day capitalism is exploitation of human beings.
The modern "crony capitalism", yes. But Nothing used more slave labor than USSR on human history.
And you can see a lot of Cubans and Venezuelans sex workers selling their bodies by less than a $1 by necessity. Nothing used more human slave labor as USSR and nothing starved more people to death than Maoist China.
So, after last night's debate in which Beto O'Rourke called for an assault weapons ban, a Texas State Representative sent out a tweet to him which can only be construed as a death threat. Here's a clue: if you threaten to shoot someone with an assault rifle when that person suggests banning assault rifles, you are proving exactly why you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
While I continue to like Andrew Yang more than I thought I would, his big "announcement" yesterday was that he is going to randomly give money away to 10 supporters. This is the kind of reality-show BS we need to move away from.
Biden continues to exhibit clear signs of mental decline. This comes on the heels of an article I read a week ago in which Obama was warning Biden and those close to him against running, saying it will likely do nothing but hurt his legacy. He sees where this is going as clearly as some of the rest of us. You can compare video of him even 3 years ago to now and see that he is simply not as sharp or quick. The same can be said of Trump when comparing clips of him talking 10 years ago. Bernie Sanders is the same age, but is showing no obvious outward signs of cognitive decline. Trump and Biden show evidence of it on a daily basis when allowed to speak for more than 30 seconds at a time.
So, after last night's debate in which Beto O'Rourke called for an assault weapons ban, a Texas State Representative sent out a tweet to him which can only be construed as a death threat. Here's a clue: if you threaten to shoot someone with an assault rifle when that person suggests banning assault rifles, you are proving exactly why you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
Things that are more deadly than rifles according to FBI table
Knives or cutting instruments 1,604
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 472
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 656
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
So, after last night's debate in which Beto O'Rourke called for an assault weapons ban, a Texas State Representative sent out a tweet to him which can only be construed as a death threat. Here's a clue: if you threaten to shoot someone with an assault rifle when that person suggests banning assault rifles, you are proving exactly why you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
Things that are more deadly than rifles according to FBI table
Knives or cutting instruments 1,604
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 472
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 656
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
That really doesn't address the crux of my point, which is an elected official saying he'd like to shoot a Presidential candidate.
So, after last night's debate in which Beto O'Rourke called for an assault weapons ban, a Texas State Representative sent out a tweet to him which can only be construed as a death threat. Here's a clue: if you threaten to shoot someone with an assault rifle when that person suggests banning assault rifles, you are proving exactly why you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
Things that are more deadly than rifles according to FBI table
Knives or cutting instruments 1,604
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 472
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 656
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
That really doesn't address the crux of my point, which is an elected official saying he'd like to shoot a Presidential candidate.
Don't forget that after his tweet was removed by Twitter, the guy said “You’re a child Robert Francis.” Which means the guy just doesn't use veiled threats, he resorts to name calling too. Classy.
The Yang thing was a gimmick, but he needs a gimmick at this point to get people to find out more about his platform and what he has to offer. The raffle gets eyeballs to his site and eyeballs that may have never given him a chance to begin with. It also gets people and the media talking about his key selling point of a basic $1000 income. $120,000 for that type of direct outreach is money well spent IMO.
Canada (who has an election coming up in October) also had a leadership debate last night. Trudeau didn't show up, the NDP proved they didn't know how to budget properly, the Green Party proved most of their ideas outside of the environment are pathetic and the Conservatives deflected every policy question thrown their way and attacked Trudeau instead. Basically a typical, skippable showing.
I see no problem with secession. If 95% of region "A" wanna "X" and 95% of region "B" wanna "Y", decentralization and secession is a way to please the majority.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
So close to understanding how much of modern day capitalism is exploitation of human beings.
The modern "crony capitalism", yes. But Nothing used more slave labor than USSR on human history.
And you can see a lot of Cubans and Venezuelans sex workers selling their bodies by less than a $1 by necessity. Nothing used more human slave labor as USSR and nothing starved more people to death than Maoist China.
I didn't defend the USSR in my post nor China, nor Cuba nor Venezuela. I'm not sure why it's relevant to bring them up. It's also just not factually true that the USSR used more slaves than the Spanish Empire (which existed over hundreds of years).
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
If bans have "never worked", then how come countries with similar average GDP to the USA, like Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan all have some of the lowest murder rates every recorded in history? And about half to a quarter of the US murder rate?
First, it started with foreigners mere days into the Administration with the attempted Muslim ban. Then the shift was to immigrants. This week, at long last, we are starting to move into the phase where the focus shifts to the "undesirables".
First off, we have the inevitable result of the clear tactic in recent years of the GOP shifting the focus off guns and putting all the onus for gun massacres on the "mentally ill". Apparently, one of the considerations is Minority Report-like monitoring of them:
But is that all?? Oh no, not even remotely. They are also giving very serious thought to rounding up the homeless in certain areas of California and "relocating" them:
Now I don't care WHAT your opinion of the homeless situation is. The homeless are American citizens with the same rights as you or I, and under no circumstances are you allowed to arbitrarily round them up and put them in a "facility" against their will. Because we all know how well this Administration runs "temporary" detention centers and what happens in them. Being homeless is not illegal, and the Federal government (or hell, even the State government) has NO authority to detain them for not owning a home or renting an apartment. None.
So, after last night's debate in which Beto O'Rourke called for an assault weapons ban, a Texas State Representative sent out a tweet to him which can only be construed as a death threat. Here's a clue: if you threaten to shoot someone with an assault rifle when that person suggests banning assault rifles, you are proving exactly why you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
Things that are more deadly than rifles according to FBI table
Knives or cutting instruments 1,604
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 472
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 656
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
That really doesn't address the crux of my point, which is an elected official saying he'd like to shoot a Presidential candidate.
If he did it, he should be charged. Death threats should't be tolerated.
I see no problem with secession. If 95% of region "A" wanna "X" and 95% of region "B" wanna "Y", decentralization and secession is a way to please the majority.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
So close to understanding how much of modern day capitalism is exploitation of human beings.
The modern "crony capitalism", yes. But Nothing used more slave labor than USSR on human history.
And you can see a lot of Cubans and Venezuelans sex workers selling their bodies by less than a $1 by necessity. Nothing used more human slave labor as USSR and nothing starved more people to death than Maoist China.
I didn't defend the USSR in my post nor China, nor Cuba nor Venezuela. I'm not sure why it's relevant to bring them up. It's also just not factually true that the USSR used more slaves than the Spanish Empire (which existed over hundreds of years).
The country in Americas who received most salves was Brazil and received 5 million slaves. USSR enslaved at least 15 million people in gulags. Note that slavery in Brazil ended by an blonde, blue eyed princess(Isabel). Facts that most people don't know.
Note that USSR lasted much less time until collapse. The unique good thing about socialism is that it can't last much as Mises explains...
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
If bans have "never worked", then how come countries with similar average GDP to the USA, like Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan all have some of the lowest murder rates every recorded in history? And about half to a quarter of the US murder rate?
Australia, i already posted that the crime raised after the ban. And the crime on US is declining. Here is an interesting map
source https://io9.gizmodo.com/three-strange-theories-about-why-americas-crime-rate-is-5933173
Approximately 5 to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in America according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. If we were to ban these guns outright tomorrow, would they just vanish into thin air? <...> Leftists seem to understand the inhumane disaster of drug prohibition. Marijuana laws have not ceased desire for the substance. Incarcerating suppliers of marijuana has not made the substance harder to find or prohibitively expensive.
<...>
So why do many believe that a ban on AR-15s would defy the reality of the law of supply and demand? Some have suggested government buy-back programs for citizens to turn in their guns for compensation. However, that will only work for people that want to participate. For many others, a ban on AR-15s will only create more dangerous, unnecessary situations for police and peaceful citizens alike
source > https://mises.org/power-market/gun-laws-create-gun-violence-0
Falkland is a bad example. It's tiny, with a tiny population, and people have guns to hunt.
It's a huge difference if people own a hunting rifle in remote areas, or semi automatic weapons in heavily populated areas. The percentage of gun owners alone doesn't give an accurate picture.
I honestly can't understand people who defend the right to own guns under any circumstances. Do you really feel safe knowing one in three people you know has firearms and knows how to use them?
Why does buying back semi automatic weapons work in New Zealand but is considered impossible in other countries?
And why do you think bans don't work? I think the opposite is true. If you expect people to be reasonable, it usually doesn't work, because they aren't. Only with laws that are enforced, and with punishments that hurt (not literally, but for example a significant percentage of your wage), people will comply.
Of course the organized criminals will always know where to buy illegal weapons. But the usual man or woman won't have access to firearms in case of a fight, a sudden rage, a perceived insult, thoughts of revenge, domestic violence... whatever.
Of course you can say, people can kill with knives etc. But it's much easier to pull a trigger from a distance than to walk up and stick a knife into someone.
That wouldn't avoid all homicide, of course. But reducing the number means saved lives. Against what?
A man's right to own a pistol because his grandfather had one, too?
A prepper's paranoid worries?
I wanted to vomit when I heard about that child being shot while he played, and people said that now others want to ban weapons, robbing parents of the chance to protect their children.
Such nonsense. You can't protect your child by owning a weapon if he has been shot. You can only take revenge.
But you can decrease the probability of your children being shot, or becoming an angry young man with a gun in his hand, by significantly reducing the number of weapons in a country. That's simple math.
Edit: Of course, bans only work assuming the state has the means to control, and to enforce the law. In a country with overwhelming street criminality and powerless or corrupt police, it wouldn't work.
I'm a bit suspicious of this graph. The original source is from a 2011 article by researchers at the University of Bologna, which is perfectly respectable. I've not though been able to find a free copy of the published article to properly check the source of the data. I did note though from the abstract about the article that the statistics for Europe are derived from 7 countries. Given the number of countries in Europe, restricting data to 7 countries seems a bit questionable and I would like to know which ones were chosen and the rationale for that choice.
If you look at the data from the UK, the pattern of crimes is very similar to that for the US
The UK is certainly not alone in that experience - other large European countries, like Spain and Germany have also seen substantial falls in crime over recent years and are currently at historically low levels.
Comments
But after he loses in 2020, it won't be unconstitutional to run again in 2024.
Or wait, maybe he's not going to run in 2024, he thinks Ivanka will.
What I was reading this morning was that the crux of the issue was that Johnson lied to the Queen about his motives and reasoning for dissolving the current session of Parliament. Was this inaccurate??
No, that's correct. The judges were pretty strong in saying that his professed motive (to prepare for a new session of Parliament where the government would outline their proposed program of legislation) was transparently not his main reason for the timing and length of the prorogation.
What was different to the judgments at the courts of first instance though was not whether Johnson lied, but whether that breach of trust should be left purely for the political process to address. The fact that Parliament did pass a law intended to rule out a no deal was accepted as a defense in the previous English judgment ('see - we told you the prorogation would not stop Parliament acting'). As I mentioned before though I think Johnson deliberately allowed that to happen rather than filibustering it out of time as part of his failed plan to get an early election. Today's judgment puts more weight on supporting the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, rather than just looking at what actually happened.
So close to understanding how much of modern day capitalism is exploitation of human beings.
These GOPers promised they would honor 9/11 but..... They lied.
Just goes to show there's something fundamentally wrong with these people. They are unamerican and the people that vote for these clowns get the circus.
Let them have their own hellworld, I'm sick of my taxpayer dollars propping up red states to save them from themselves. They're determined to live in a corrupt corporate serfdom. Whatever stop dragging us all down with you.
I certainly agree with him that the vast, vast majority of females don't grow up dreaming of being prostitutes. I also think that if they do happen to be prostitutes, they don't want to be arrested and thrown in jail to force them to change their lifestyle. When we call politicians "whores", it's really kind of insulting to ACTUAL sex workers, who by large are being completely and totally up front with the exchange that is taking place.
US didn’t annex any of these countries or regions. Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria are or was a civil crises. Iraq was stupidity at its finest but still an independent state unlike Crimea which got Russia kicked out.
They’re also out of the G8 because they’re no longer considered a democracy.
I trust you don't seriously think Putin would try grabbing it without knowing he'd meet wide support from local population? Otherwise, by that logic half the Ukraine and Baltic states should already have been a Russian territory
Unless, of course, democracy is only where White House decides it is, like in Kosovo (now a drug hub) but not Crimea.
Considered by who, the states that confused themselves with world police and supported operations against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria? And just recently tried the same with Venezuela? You'd think that by now there should be plenty of evidence nothing good comes out when they decide to interfere with inner affairs of states in political turmoil :shrug:
PS Crimea wasn't independent in the first place, so nothing changed in that regard.
I’m kinda laughing, but then I also probably think that the propaganda fuelled media would skew both of our views towards completely opposite points of view.
I’ll just state that anything that wins a democratic vote by 97% is a sham. Also, the people of Crimea literally had a gun to their head as they were under Russian occupation at the time. There is a reason why only 11 countries find the referendum valid (opposed to 100 who think it is invalid based off of a UN General Assembly resolution).
You're missing a few key details.
A - Russia (and the Soviet Union) signed several treaties that guaranteed the national sovereignty of the Ukraine. Unilaterally putting troops in Ukrainian territory, holding a referendum and then annexing any part of it is by definition a violation of international law.
B - Russia has an incredibly spotty record with respect to holding fair and free elections over the last 15 or so years. So I dont think anyone is making an audacious claim in assuming Putin would do whatever it take to win a referendum in the Crimea.
C - If you read a headline that said "Right-Wing Nationalist nation annexes _____ ethnic territory, citing unconfirmed ethnic violence", you could be forgiven for thinking it was from 1938.
What operation in Venezuela? Vocally supporting one branch of the constitutionally elected government (the legislature) is no different than supporting a separate branch of that government (the presidency). Moreover, Russia is selling weapons to Maduro's government. How is that not equally an "operation against Venezuela"?
I can't believe people sincerely want to marshal that as a point against the US and its allies while apparently Russian involvement doesn't get mentioned at all? It's a rather bald hypocrisy.
Nevertheless, even though I don't buy the 95% result for a second, I do believe those who wanted to become a part of Russia were in majority compared to those who didn't. Same nation, same language, so why the hell not when Ukrainian government wasted its inheritance from USSR (Ukraine was its the most developed country, with nuclear and space-capable industries) and was putting pressure on their native language.
A - Yugoslavia.
B - Even though I consider myself more knowledgeable of internal American affairs than you of Russian - for simple reason, I can read what's being discussed e.g. here (among the many other places), but how many can access what's happening in Russian infospace? - I do share the sentiment, which is why I didn't readily buy the 95% figure. But see above, despite that it's reasonable to assume the referendum did coincide with local populace's desires.
C - Sure. But you're missing the fact right-wing nationalism had already existed in Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector, and was actively trying to establish itself as actual authority (with partial success).
Pretty sure Trump mentioned something about sending in troops, though it could've been his usual style. If you need to know, I've been pro-Guaido, simply because Maduro had plenty of opportunity to fix the country - even despite the lasting sanctions - and still only managed to make it worse. But recent history has been rather illustrative of what happens when democratic world starts supporting the dethronement of an authoritarian - blood and chaos. I can't, in good conscience, qualify it as an improvement of any kind.
Yugoslavia has nothing to do with Russia's violation of Ukraine's national sovereignty and the unlawful annexation of the Crimea.
The problem with this argument is: I'm not defending any of America's actions. I am, however, pointing out that Russia's actions are unlawful with respect to treaties they themselves signed.
I do not believe it's reasonable to assume that the referendum coincided with the local population's desires simply because absent any useful data, we shouldnt make conclusions either way. I can see an argument for why Crimea would want to be a part of Russia, but I can also see an argument for why they'd want to be part of Ukraine. Without data to back up either argument, they're pretty much useless.
Russia had the chance to offer up that data by holding a fair and free vote. They chose not to, and so we should not view that referendum to mean much.
It's perhaps worth noting that multiple cases were going on, all appeals ending up at the Supreme Court (which is quite new in the UK). Each case had a slightly different emphasis, and there are differences in the legal principles being applied too. The Scottish judges are applying principles drawn from continental ideas, and are less deferential than the other courts to the power of the royal prerogative that backs up the executive. (The Northern Ireland case focused more on the Good Friday agreement.)
The problem here of course is that the Union itself is increasingly seen as a problem by some English voters, which in turn stokes independence movements. The backstop isn't taken seriously, Scottish judges are seen as interfering... So an attempt to secede from the EU tends toward the break up of the UK itself.
The election slogans are starting to write themselves: "Boris Johnson lied to the Queen, his only brother doesn't trust him, how are we supposed to?" The Liberal Democrats meanwhile are heading for revoke and "Make It Stop".
Well, since the Tatars were removed by the Russians decades ago, you're probably right that the current inhabitants would vote for inclusion in Russia. Kind of like how Karelia would have voted to become part of Finland if the Soviets had lost WW2. Also like that spit of land around 'Königsberg' would vote to stay Russian now. Nothing like moving out everybody who lives there and replacing them with your own to make sure the vote doesn't go against you...
I agree this is looking more and more likely. Recent polling evidence suggests a clear majority of Scots would vote for independence, while there is now a narrow majority in Northern Ireland that think reunification will happen.
It's often forgotten that the backstop so hated by the Brexiteers was designed by the UK and only reluctantly accepted by the EU (the problem for them is that it provides a back door into the single market). The fundamental reason for the backstop covering the whole of the UK rather than just Northern Ireland was Theresa May's concerns about the possibility of pushing people into voting for Irish reunification. Some of those in the current UK government have recently been floating the idea once more of a compromise position with a Northern Ireland only backstop - and for the first time today sources in the DUP have suggested they would be willing to look at some form of this. I don't think that change would halt the growing desire (among younger voters, as well as nationalists) to leave the UK.
While far weaker than in other countries, the Brexit debate has also helped spark a little bit of debate about independence even in Wales - see this article for instance. On the face of it that may seem odd - Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted heavily to remain, but there was a majority for leave in Wales. However, since the referendum the UK government has paid little attention to the impact of their proposals on devolved governments. That lack of consultation has been the subject of a Scottish court case, but it's also been very irritating to the Welsh government. The possible implications of no deal are also of concern to some groups, e.g. Welsh farmers.
"Divide et impera" has always worked. Stalin had taken great care to distribute Russian population in territories populated by other ethnicities, like Kazakhstan etc.
Similar conflicts happen everywhere in Europe, because nations are comparatively small and borders have moved frequently.
Slovakia has a southern region with a relatively large Hungarian minority, which Orban tried to claim, Transsylvania is considered Romanian by Romanians and Hungarian by Hungarians, the region Alsace changed from French to German and back, many Scots and Catalans would like independence, but a referendum includes English (or Spanish, respectively) citizens who live there...
Same same, but different.
The huge difference being the use of military, or paramilitary, force by Russia in case of disagreement.
Besides, if Russia feels a referendum in Crimea was legitimate, why not allow the same thing in Chechnya or other regions?
The modern "crony capitalism", yes. But Nothing used more slave labor than USSR on human history.
And you can see a lot of Cubans and Venezuelans sex workers selling their bodies by less than a $1 by necessity. Nothing used more human slave labor as USSR and nothing starved more people to death than Maoist China.
While I continue to like Andrew Yang more than I thought I would, his big "announcement" yesterday was that he is going to randomly give money away to 10 supporters. This is the kind of reality-show BS we need to move away from.
Biden continues to exhibit clear signs of mental decline. This comes on the heels of an article I read a week ago in which Obama was warning Biden and those close to him against running, saying it will likely do nothing but hurt his legacy. He sees where this is going as clearly as some of the rest of us. You can compare video of him even 3 years ago to now and see that he is simply not as sharp or quick. The same can be said of Trump when comparing clips of him talking 10 years ago. Bernie Sanders is the same age, but is showing no obvious outward signs of cognitive decline. Trump and Biden show evidence of it on a daily basis when allowed to speak for more than 30 seconds at a time.
Look to FBI statistics that i posted long time ago. """"assault"""" rifles + bolt action rifles + anti materiel rifles + old rifled are present in a tiny amount of homicides compared to pistols/revolvers ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls )
Things that are more deadly than rifles according to FBI table
Knives or cutting instruments 1,604
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 472
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 656
Assuming that bans works(never worked), makes more sense to ban knifes than rifles...
That really doesn't address the crux of my point, which is an elected official saying he'd like to shoot a Presidential candidate.
More evidence of "The Shame and Cruelty of the GOP" (Keith Olbermann)
Don't forget that after his tweet was removed by Twitter, the guy said “You’re a child Robert Francis.” Which means the guy just doesn't use veiled threats, he resorts to name calling too. Classy.
The Yang thing was a gimmick, but he needs a gimmick at this point to get people to find out more about his platform and what he has to offer. The raffle gets eyeballs to his site and eyeballs that may have never given him a chance to begin with. It also gets people and the media talking about his key selling point of a basic $1000 income. $120,000 for that type of direct outreach is money well spent IMO.
Canada (who has an election coming up in October) also had a leadership debate last night. Trudeau didn't show up, the NDP proved they didn't know how to budget properly, the Green Party proved most of their ideas outside of the environment are pathetic and the Conservatives deflected every policy question thrown their way and attacked Trudeau instead. Basically a typical, skippable showing.
I didn't defend the USSR in my post nor China, nor Cuba nor Venezuela. I'm not sure why it's relevant to bring them up. It's also just not factually true that the USSR used more slaves than the Spanish Empire (which existed over hundreds of years).
If bans have "never worked", then how come countries with similar average GDP to the USA, like Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan all have some of the lowest murder rates every recorded in history? And about half to a quarter of the US murder rate?
First off, we have the inevitable result of the clear tactic in recent years of the GOP shifting the focus off guns and putting all the onus for gun massacres on the "mentally ill". Apparently, one of the considerations is Minority Report-like monitoring of them:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/mental-health/460556-trump-administration-considers-monitoring-people-with-mental
But is that all?? Oh no, not even remotely. They are also giving very serious thought to rounding up the homeless in certain areas of California and "relocating" them:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-officials-tour-facility-for-relocation-of-californias-homeless-people-says-report
Now I don't care WHAT your opinion of the homeless situation is. The homeless are American citizens with the same rights as you or I, and under no circumstances are you allowed to arbitrarily round them up and put them in a "facility" against their will. Because we all know how well this Administration runs "temporary" detention centers and what happens in them. Being homeless is not illegal, and the Federal government (or hell, even the State government) has NO authority to detain them for not owning a home or renting an apartment. None.
If he did it, he should be charged. Death threats should't be tolerated.
The country in Americas who received most salves was Brazil and received 5 million slaves. USSR enslaved at least 15 million people in gulags. Note that slavery in Brazil ended by an blonde, blue eyed princess(Isabel). Facts that most people don't know.
Note that USSR lasted much less time until collapse. The unique good thing about socialism is that it can't last much as Mises explains...
Canada is the third most armed country in Americas. Losing only to Falklands(an tinny British territory) and US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
Australia, i already posted that the crime raised after the ban. And the crime on US is declining. Here is an interesting map
source https://io9.gizmodo.com/three-strange-theories-about-why-americas-crime-rate-is-5933173
Approximately 5 to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in America according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. If we were to ban these guns outright tomorrow, would they just vanish into thin air? <...> Leftists seem to understand the inhumane disaster of drug prohibition. Marijuana laws have not ceased desire for the substance. Incarcerating suppliers of marijuana has not made the substance harder to find or prohibitively expensive.
<...>
So why do many believe that a ban on AR-15s would defy the reality of the law of supply and demand? Some have suggested government buy-back programs for citizens to turn in their guns for compensation. However, that will only work for people that want to participate. For many others, a ban on AR-15s will only create more dangerous, unnecessary situations for police and peaceful citizens alike
source > https://mises.org/power-market/gun-laws-create-gun-violence-0
It's a huge difference if people own a hunting rifle in remote areas, or semi automatic weapons in heavily populated areas. The percentage of gun owners alone doesn't give an accurate picture.
I honestly can't understand people who defend the right to own guns under any circumstances. Do you really feel safe knowing one in three people you know has firearms and knows how to use them?
Why does buying back semi automatic weapons work in New Zealand but is considered impossible in other countries?
And why do you think bans don't work? I think the opposite is true. If you expect people to be reasonable, it usually doesn't work, because they aren't. Only with laws that are enforced, and with punishments that hurt (not literally, but for example a significant percentage of your wage), people will comply.
Of course the organized criminals will always know where to buy illegal weapons. But the usual man or woman won't have access to firearms in case of a fight, a sudden rage, a perceived insult, thoughts of revenge, domestic violence... whatever.
Of course you can say, people can kill with knives etc. But it's much easier to pull a trigger from a distance than to walk up and stick a knife into someone.
That wouldn't avoid all homicide, of course. But reducing the number means saved lives. Against what?
A man's right to own a pistol because his grandfather had one, too?
A prepper's paranoid worries?
I wanted to vomit when I heard about that child being shot while he played, and people said that now others want to ban weapons, robbing parents of the chance to protect their children.
Such nonsense. You can't protect your child by owning a weapon if he has been shot. You can only take revenge.
But you can decrease the probability of your children being shot, or becoming an angry young man with a gun in his hand, by significantly reducing the number of weapons in a country. That's simple math.
Edit: Of course, bans only work assuming the state has the means to control, and to enforce the law. In a country with overwhelming street criminality and powerless or corrupt police, it wouldn't work.
I'm a bit suspicious of this graph. The original source is from a 2011 article by researchers at the University of Bologna, which is perfectly respectable. I've not though been able to find a free copy of the published article to properly check the source of the data. I did note though from the abstract about the article that the statistics for Europe are derived from 7 countries. Given the number of countries in Europe, restricting data to 7 countries seems a bit questionable and I would like to know which ones were chosen and the rationale for that choice.
If you look at the data from the UK, the pattern of crimes is very similar to that for the US
The UK is certainly not alone in that experience - other large European countries, like Spain and Germany have also seen substantial falls in crime over recent years and are currently at historically low levels.