It's not that complicated. Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG, not a useless ditherer like Garland. What a disgraceful tenure he had. If he was going to take so long to bring charges he should have just avoided it. Instead he takes 3 years to bring all these charges which naturally look like election interference and as such are paused until they choke the election away and the new justice department kills all the cases.
Don't elect a geriatric compromise candidate. The current administration's excesses create a massive opportunity for a pendulum swing. It's really not that hard. Hold yourself, your neighbors, your family and your friends accountable for who they vote for. And as tempting as it is, don't give into cynicism. It will take work but change for the better is always possible, and really in America, is far less out of reach than it would often seem.
Doesn't matter whom you elect, at least not as far as righting wrongs. You might prevent more egregious wrongs from happening, but convincing Congress to return to rule of law is impossible when Congress is almost entirely funded by the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge.
You're also up against a large population which has been brainwashed, and even if someone deprogrammed is still not intellectually capable of reasoning beyond their own immediate interests. In other words, a democracy where ignorant people can vote is ultimately doomed to look quite like what we have now.
While I broadly agree with this characterization, it is somewhat inaccurate.
> the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge.
I don't think this is accurate as a fact of recent history. As I recall, said interests wanted a repeat of Bush v Clinton. While they may have fallen in line since, I think this picture you are painting misses a lot of nuance. The current president was considered a joke up until the votes started coming in. So I think you are painting with an overly broad brush.
Secondly, at a certain point this starts to read like little more than cynicism. What is a suggestion you have, that isn't merely one in the negative? I genuinely sympathize with your perspective, but I'm curious what the subsequent step is then meant to be.
Thirdly, preventing egregious wrongs is pretty important. I don't believe rule of law is permanently out of reach. If your basis for this is the broad brush you painted earlier well then I don't think that actually computes. And I don't think preventing egregious wrongs should be minimized, even if structural issues are a barrier to "righting wrongs" as I believe you correctly put it. Solving those structural issues is a longer discussion, and one predicated on the requirement that there is no longer a "lunatic in charge".
That in of itself, is important. Let's also remember they could have brought the cases earlier. Your comment doesn't really address that, unless you are essentially claiming someone paid off Garland to dither away for 3 years. I gather that is not your claim? Therefore I think you're being overly cynical. As I said, in many ways it's not that complicated.
> Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG
Impossible. Democratic Party power is concentrated into a gerontocracy mostly interested in preserving their own wealth/power.
Appeasement and encouragement of status quo will be the result of any Democrat victory.
Of course all this Trump shit is good precedent for them to use similar tactics to line their pockets next time.
Is this supposed to be an intelligent comment? Is your answer to forgo elections ahead of time? You plan for the worst outcome by already accepting it as reality?
Why don't you work on lobbying your grandparents and their vote because I seriously doubt you are equipped for whatever armed conflict you are imagining. Have some dignity. If Americans are so called upon to defend the constitution then so be it, there is no need to prematurely soil your pants about it.
People often in essence say "I think the odds of [the alternate option(s)] are greater than are being represented". It can be helpful to frame it that way, rather than "I will over-react to what I feel is an over-reaction".
I generally agree, but this time his VP isn't going to defect and he's been building ICE into a republican guard loyal only to him, so I think you can't just completely say "well it failed last time so it'll fail again"
Yep, might not have liked a lot of what Mike Pence stood for but he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views.
Vance however, I dont see much of that in action. But time will tell. Folks like to think it is a quiet conspiracy but every time you get a glimpse inside workings of government, if feels like they hate each other more than the next guy, regardless of who is in power.
> he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views.
eh I'm not really going to agree with you on this. He flinched 1 millimeter away from committing a full coup. That's not really a positive vote, it's just not as negative as it could be.
“It’s not that complicated. Give up your principles for short term house cleaning.”
People with strong political beliefs are going to turn their head to keep their side in power rather than put someone in power that will push policies they are fundamentally against.
Blagojevich was not replaced by a Republican.
At this point presidential elections are won by getting members of the other side to stay home. So encourage young people to get out and vote if you want a Democrat. Don’t waste your breath telling someone who cares about gun rights to vote for a Democrat.
What kind of reply is that? Nevermind the questionable style of making up a sentence and putting it in quotation marks, what about the comment you're replying to suggests giving up any principles?
You cannot vote for someone in a representative democracy that will enact things against your principles. Voting Democrat, regardless of the quality of character of the representative, would be a betrayal of principles for the people who believe things like “abortion is murder”.
The made up quotation is a style designed to illustrate how dumb of a suggestion that is to people who vote on single issues.
It’s how single issue voters think regardless of Democrat/Republican. They ignore the representative’s moral failings and pick the one that will execute their policy desires.
Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position?
Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.
You suggested voting for a Democrat, which would be a ridiculous betrayal to any single issue voter Republican voting for something like stopping abortion because they think it’s murder.
It’s so ridiculous on its face that I put in quotes what would be running through any single-issue voter’s head when they would hear a suggestion to vote for a different policy platform to oust a representative. You might as well ask a Bernie supporter to vote in Ron Paul.
I wasn't talking to single issue republicans... I didn't take the OP to be one, and I (like you) would not waste much time on one.
The point I was trying to make is Democrats can elect and nominate better candidates. But let's also not forget, single issue Republicans are not the only problem.
Institutional or single issue Democrats are also the problem. The biggest problem with Democrats is the DNC. The same people who lied to you about Biden's fitness for a second term are by and large still there. They still want your money. The DNC uses the Trump fear to escape accountability for its failures at every turn. The losers who have lost to this man for about a decade now are still there.
So I think we are in agreement, but I would add the reason more young people and independents need to vote is to replace the power structure on both sides of the aisle, not merely the one in power today. This is not "both sides", rather two things can be true. An institutional Democrat can be better than what we have today, but I think history has shown in the long run it is not good enough. What comes after this from the right in the near future may be far worse. Do not underestimate the ability for a future nominee to make the current president look like a saint... recall when people thought Bush II was a low point. It can happen again. If we keep electing mediocre Democrats, I believe it will.
Thank you for clarifying your comment, I appreciate you coming back to do that.
Movements that ignore the need for a charismatic leader fail, often spectacularly. It's why for example occupy wallstreet was such a laughable failure. Who was its leader? Is the human megaphone a species of "massive collaboration and communication"? Can you name me one leader from that movement who was nationally recognized as such?
Strong leaders are always required. Such people reduce the cost of messaging and communication which would otherwise be insurmountable to cohere a movement and actually make change. You don't elect a mob. Find leaders you trust and spread your conviction without apology. Roosevelt was not Roosevelt until after his works were done. We don't need some amorphous "massive collaboration and communication" we need to elect leaders who will fight for what we believe. So many of your friends, family and neighbors are willing to elect sell-out leaders. You could start there, that is if you actually want to fix the problem rather than invent new ones.
> It's why for example occupy wallstreet was such a laughable failure.
This claim is enormous. I would instead argue that the movement lacked cohesiveness because it basically complained about too large a set of (correctly identified as interconnected) issues and lost momentum because the surface was too large.
That said, I agree w your point about a face being important. Even in software, where tech can speak for itself, we see this heavily: Torvalds, Matsumoto, van Rossum, Jobs,
> LLMs don't second-guess whether a change is worth submitting, and they certainly don't feel the social pressure of how their contribution might be received. The filter is completely absent.
Of course you could have an agent on your side do this, so I take you to mean a LLM that submits a PR and is not instructed to make such a reflection will not intrinsically make it as a human would, that is as a necessary side effect of submitting in the first place (though one might be surprised).
It would be curious to have an API that perhaps attempts to validate some attestation about how the submitting LLM's contribution was derived, ie force that reflection at submission time with some reasonable guarantees of veracity even if it had yet to be considered. Perhaps some future API can enforce such a contract among the various LLMs.
Prioritizing or deferring to existing contributors happens in pretty much every human endeavor.
As you point out this of course predates the age of LLM, in many ways it's basic human tribal behavior.
This does have its own set of costs and limitations however. Judgement is hard to measure. Humans create sorting bonds that may optimize for prestige or personal ties over strict qualifications or ability. The tribe is useful, but it can also be ugly. Perhaps in a not too distant future, in some domains or projects these sorts of instincts will be rendered obsolete by projects willing to accept any contribution that satisfies enough constraints, thereby trading human judgement for the desired mix of velocity and safety. Perhaps as the agents themselves improve this tension becomes less an act of external constraint but an internal guide. And what would this be, if not a simulation of judgement itself?
You could also do it in stages, ie have a delegated agent promote people to some purgatory where there is at least some hope of human intervention to attain the same rights and privileges as pre-existing contributors, that is if said agent deems your attempt worthy enough. Or maybe to fight spam an earnest contributor will have to fork over some digital currency, to essentially pay the cost of requesting admission.
All of these scenarios are rather familiar in terms of the history of human social arrangements.
That is just to say, there is no destruction of the social contract here. Only another incremental evolution.
And they make money. A scammer is the President of the United States.
At a certain point why blame people for trying to keep up? Why are scammers so successful? It seems to me we have a systemic failure at a societal level. Until we are honest about that it will only get worse. Until then maybe some rouge LLM botching some critical system will be the wake up call we need.
I am not sure what to make of critiques that seem to rest on notions of a small population of scammers preying upon the doe-eyed public. I think the situation is a bit closer to Carlin: garbage in, garbage out. A critique that holds up quite excellently in this AI age.
western society is a shelve of its former glory. it did not last long but there was an age were man was capable of greatness. the early internet kinda was the last stretch of this short run then money corrupted it. the underlying issue stems from abandoning cultural education as a Western value. Instead, we've opted to dispense raw ideology devoid of any thinking mechanism that we now seek so dearly to integrate to LLMs so that they can be more like us. This sloppening manifested in our lives through every medium.
We witnessed it when animation shifted to 3D, providing slop and poorly designed characters and stories. We witnessed it when video games all adopted the same game engines, look and feel and lack of narrative stakes, slopping ideology down players’ throats- no nuance, no wit, just mind-numbing dogma that punishes anyone who dares to criticize.Perhaps most damaging was Netflix's infiltration of our households that has accelerated our collective intellectual atrophy through relentless ideologically charged content parroting as entertainment. Meanwhile, our children's minds are being shaped not by family or tradition but by the algorithms of TikTok and Snapchat.The past decade and a half hasn't just prepared LLMs to replicate human abilities it has systematically stripped away human complexity, reshaping us into predictable patterns, not to raise LLMs to our level, but to reduce us to theirs, until the distinction no longer matters.
People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful.
Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis.
If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable.
Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.
> People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state
Let's take a step back. OP, essentially, made a very basic logical error (actually not an error IMO, but a willfully misleading statement).
They said, "Statistically, [assuming a cop is a white supremacist] a pretty sensible assumption."
In my mind, what makes something a statistically safe assumption would mean that, more times than not, you'd be right. So it'd mean that greater than half of police are white supremacists. They then posted a link to support that statement which said that some white supremacist groups are instructing their members to join the police force.
He's gone from the evidence of "some" white supremacist groups are telling "some" of their members among the police force to justify saying that it's a safe assumption to assume any officer is a white supremacist (greater than 50% chance for any random cop to be a white supremacist).
Considering that I strongly doubt the quantity of white supremacists that are members of white supremacist organizations in this county is even more than half of the amount of police officers, I very much doubt that the subset of individuals in the subset of organizations who were given this instruction and actually followed through on it comprises more than half of the police officers in the country.
To which I facetious said, "I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal." Implying that, if the cops used the same logic on a neighborhood with criminals, it'd be sensible for them to assume every member of the neighborhood is a criminal. That point seemed to go over OPs head as he replied as if I wasn't making a facetious point and implied that cops do indeed do that. Presumably he thinks that's a bad thing when they do it but is perfectly reasonable for him to do.
I don't think anyone should be using faulty logic to make claims about groups of people.
> If you support the cops on this
I never said I did and, as such, the rest of this comment is not directed to me.
Indeed, your chances of needing a seatbelt for a particular car trip are very low but, over many trips, it becomes a safe assumption you'll be in an accident and, therefore, generally good policy to be prepared for that eventuality.
He doesn't want to have to stand up, turn around and apologize to parents on behalf of an asleep at the wheel Congress again.
At some level I don't blame him. It is also a bit strange how in that act alone he showed more accountability than most of the politicians that were questioning him, never mind most executives. I suppose Josh Hawley wants to be liable for personal lawsuits for his acts of Congress too... people cringe at his "robotic" demeanor but I can't remember the last time someone turned and faced people and apologized like this. Most people asked to do the same (even in front of the same body) never do.
People like you are somewhat amusing. You keep going on and on about how you are Swedish when the right-wing playbook is global, this could easily be a post from any of your ilk anywhere on the European continent or the United States.
Let's even grant you the premise that these statistics are accurate. What do you want to do about it? Deprive people of their rights extrajudicially because of where they come from? Should we treat people from MENA differently before the law? What about a native Swede who is antisemitic? Should they lose some rights? Should we deport people based on place of origin? Is that what the West is based on to you, increasingly arbitrary or national/ethnic access to rights vs a universalist conception of human rights? Or would that be a "third world" degeneration?
What is the West? Are Jewish people synonymous with the West? Was that always the case? You talk about minority protections are Jewish people a majority in Sweden? If not, why do you advocate protections for some minorities and not others? Do you think Jewish people have suffered in the "first world" West? Where does antisemitism come from? Was the Weimar Republic the third world? How about the regime that followed? Should European antisemites be allowed into Sweden? Maybe everyone who enters Sweden should have to pass an ideological test to prove they are sufficiently non antisemitic and appropriately Western? Or maybe you let them in but they have to walk around in special outfits or with a special lapel or label on them so we can be vigilant regarding their whereabouts? Perhaps anyone who commits a crime in Sweden should be deported, as only an anti-western person would exhibit criminal behavior?
What do you want to do about it? Highlighting crime tells us nothing. Every society deals with crime. Most societies have minorities. What separates societies is how they deal with it. So tell us, warden of the West, what you seek to do.
I should know better than to wade into a debate with someone who argues like you. Your comment history does indeed speak for itself. But I will try to debate you in good faith. I look forward to your answers.
You are already poisoning the well before I answer, so I feel like my answer will not matter to you, but I will absolutely answer in good faith as I always do.
Not sure if you are American or not, but European migration policy seems especially harsh compared to yours, but we have our reasons. (2015 aware, wir shiffen das)
I voted for Moderaterna, to be clear. You can look them up.
>Let's even grant you the premise that these statistics are accurate.
BRÅ is a state beauru and they are accurate.
>What do you want to do about it?
Vote for the party that has policy on this I agree with.
>Deprive people of their rights extrajudicially because of where they come from?
Yes! We already do this. Everyone in the EU can freely migrate to another EU country in the Schengen zone. If you are outside EU you need Visa or Asylum. Thus, we treat people differently based on where they are from. We do not have "open borders", nor should we.
We see this also with the Ukraine war. Who do we feel closest to? Someone fleeing war in Somalia or Afghanistan or someone fleeing from Russia's invasion in Ukraine?
You know the answer even if you do not want to admit it, you maybe feel the same way.
Also, "rights" was never to be allowed to migrate anywhere. Never was, never will.
>Should we treat people from MENA differently before the law?
Yes! We already do. See above.
>What about a native Swede who is antisemitic?
That is bad and I reject any type of neo-nazi conspiracies. I also fight these online and there is a perplexing unity on neo-nazis and Hamas etc and their ilk on this. They always revert to "well jews control the media, usa etc". Ridicolous.
>Should they lose some rights?
Yes! We have a law called "hets mot folkgrupp". If convicted, you lose rights.
>Should we deport people based on place of origin?
No, we base it on behaviour such as crime etc. Then they should be deported.
The policy now is prevention also.
>Is that what the West is based on to you, increasingly arbitrary or national/ethnic access to rights vs a universalist conception of human rights?
Human rights does not mean to let everyone who wants in. It never did.
>Or would that be a "third world" degeneration?
That would be one of many criteria. See Pol Pot etc.
>What is the West?
Europe, with a line towards Russia, generally. Ukraine and Georgia I consider the west for example. This is based on behaviours. To the South, Mediterranian is a border. Greece Cyprus is part of the West, not Turkey.
UK is the West also. And Canada and USA. And Israel.
>Are Jewish people synonymous with the West?
Yes, Israel and its population have shown to be our steadfast partners.
>Was that always the case?
Sadly no, it was only Napoleon who started to let Jews in so to say.
>You talk about minority protections are Jewish people a majority in Sweden?
Yes!
The national minorities in Sweden have long historical ties to the country. In 2000, Sweden officially recognised the following minorities and minority languages: the Jews and Yiddish, the Roma and Romani Chib, the Sami and the Sami language, the Swedish Finns and Finnish, as well as the Tornedalians and Meänkieli (sometimes called Torne Valley Finnish).
>If not, why do you advocate protections for some minorities and not others?
See the official recognition above.
>Do you think Jewish people have suffered in the "first world" West?
Sadly yes. See my articles above. I also assume you mean Nazi Germany as some kind of "gotcha".
>Where does antisemitism come from?
Right now? MENA countries, see my articles above. Antisemitism has a long and sordid history.
ADL surveys consistently show antisemitic attitudes in the 74–97% range across much of the region. It's not fringe, its normal there. Nazi propaganda made it worse, but it didn't create it.
>Was the Weimar Republic the third world?
No? Nobody thinks this.
>How about the regime that followed?
No? Nobody thinks this. Antisemitism is not the only requirement to be third world.
>Should European antisemites be allowed into Sweden?
Yes! We are in Schengen after all.
>Maybe everyone who enters Sweden should have to pass an ideological test to prove they are sufficiently non antisemitic and appropriately Western?
There is no "test" for "entering Sweden". But there is one to be a Swedish citizen. And even before you are a Swedish citizen, you can now be deported based on your bad conduct.
Sweden has introduced or is in the process of implementing stricter requirements and assessments in migration law, particularly around good conduct ("god vandel"), self-sufficiency, and in some cases language/knowledge.
This allows the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) to deny entry, refuse a residence permit, or revoke/withdraw one based on a holistic assessment of the person's conduct.
Not following laws, court decisions, or authority orders (e.g., unpaid fines, ignored decisions).
Unwillingness to pay debts (to individuals or the state).
Repeated minor offenses.
Welfare system abuse (e.g., fraud).
Associations with criminal/extremist networks.
Serious addiction or a grossly irresponsible lifestyle.
This is not a moral philosophy test or quiz — it's a discretionary evaluation based on evidence (police records, debt registers, authority reports, etc.). It's broader than just criminal convictions.
For permanent residence or extensions in some categories, there are discussions of tightening rules (e.g., basic Swedish proficiency like A2/B1 level mentioned in policy contexts), but as of now, it's not a universal entry barrier.
For Swedish citizenship (medborgarskap), stricter rules are rolling out from June 2026:
Knowledge test in Swedish language (reading/listening comprehension at functional level) — planned start around October 2027.
Test on Swedish society/knowledge about Sweden.
Higher "hederligt levnadssätt" (honest way of life) requirement, similar to vandel.
Self-sufficiency requirement (no long-term welfare dependency).
>Or maybe you let them in but they have to walk around in special outfits or with a special lapel or label on them so we can be vigilant regarding their whereabouts?
I understand that you are trying to equivocate the current Swedish government to Nazi Germany, but the above is not done.
>Perhaps anyone who commits a crime in Sweden should be deported, as only an anti-western person would exhibit criminal behavior?
You have 2 parts here. We indeed should deport more foreign born criminals, and we are.
The new government have passed the "bristande vandel" or "poor conduct" addendum to the deportation law.
The concept was revived in the Tidö Agreement (2022). It called for investigating ways to deport or deny permits to non-citizens showing "bristande vandel," including things like association with criminal gangs, extremism, drug abuse, prostitution, or general non-compliance with rules.
It applies mainly to non-EU/EEA citizens and certain residence permits (not fully EU-law protected ones, though some security-based revocations are possible).
This does not directly apply to Swedish citizens (citizenship revocation has separate, stricter rules and constitutional hurdles).
>What do you want to do about it?
See above, all policy I voted for and agree with.
>Highlighting crime tells us nothing.
It does! It tells us who did it, who is responsible. And steps to avoid and correct it. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ), continue to produce and release reports that analyze crime data by immigrant background or foreign background (typically defined by whether a person is born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents, born in Sweden to one or two foreign-born parents, or born abroad). They did this in 1995, 2005 and again in 2025. If these stats offend you, maybe it says something about you.
>Every society deals with crime
Yes, but some more then others. Do you not want to live in a society with less crime or more crime? Every country has garbage and trash. Do you want less or more? Every country has electricity outages sometimes, do you want less or more?
>Most societies have minorities. What separates societies is how they deal with it.
Is that really the defining variable? It reads like something I'd have written in high school, the kind of line that sounds profound but dissolves under pressure. What about living conditions, quality of life, infrastructure, longevity, happiness? Those seem at least as relevant, if not more so.
>So tell us, warden of the West, what you seek to do.
I'm not offended. I actually appreciate you answering the questions and attempting a good faith reply.
I have some follow-ups.
> Yes! We already do this. Everyone in the EU can freely migrate to another EU country in the Schengen zone.
How about any other ways? When they are in the country? How about vs other non EU immigrants? Should people from MENA be treated differently than people from Israel? From the United States?
You say open borders are not human rights... but you said European antisemites should be allowed to come into Sweden. If you care about open borders and antisemitism so much, would you support a Swedish brexit? You seem to indicate you voted for a party that changed migration laws. Would you also support a party that banned European antisemites? Why is schengen inviolate but not your prior rules on migration or crime?
> The policy now is prevention also.
Meaning what? And on what basis?
> Yes, Israel and its population have shown to be our steadfast partners.
How is Israel a partner to Sweden? So a partner to Sweden is what makes a country Western? Earlier you seemed to suggest it was based on geography but also "behaviors". What behaviors would those be?
Lastly, I understand you think the Nazi analogies are gotchas. You'll have to forgive me. After all, while you take great care in your prior reply to be sensible, your other replies did not convey the same tone. Focusing exclusively on one minority group makes one look very suspicious. It's not like the thought of Nazis comes from nowhere.
You should know it was only last year your "Moderate" minister for migration Johan Forssell was involved in a scandal where his teenage son was pictured giving a Nazi salute, having attended neo Nazi gatherings. This is the same man that blames cultural degradation and parents for the actions of other teenagers, who wants to lower protections for young people and their parents accused of crimes or misconduct... do you not see an irony here?
Do you think he should have resigned? Do you not see any nexus between focusing on crime through a racial or ethnic lens and fascism? Do you take the responsibility of any criminal justice system to prove guilt and treat defendants of equal status equally before the law regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, .etc seriously?
Are you as surprised as he was, given his rhetoric, that the security services of your country had to inform him his own son was involved in such a group?
It seems to me someone who wants to make broad associations based on neighboring conduct and loosen protections before the law in the name of Swedish values and public safety should at the very least have the decency to resign in such a circumstance. It is deeply ironic to me and I think perfectly captures how I personally feel about the right, from Europe to the United States to Israel...
So in summary, is your position if a MENA teen in Sweden does a Nazi salute, you want them and their family deported? But if the Minister of Migration's son does it, that's fine? You agree with your party it's not a big deal?
Remind me again where antisemitism comes from?
You asked if I want less garbage and trash in my country. I'll settle for less Nazis.
Humorous of you to think they would be against AIPAC.
Gulf states have little to nothing in common with Palestinians. Citizens of most gulf states are born into relative wealth merely by the fact their countries are rich in petrodollars. They build lavish cities and have standards of living (for their citizens) that increasingly put the West to shame. They are "diversifying" from oil by building massive AI datacenters and essentially catering to Westerners who want to live unencumbered by Western pretensions of civic duty, avoid taxes in their home countries, etc. They make deals with the Israelis and have for over a decade now, even if under the table. They buy American weapons, their elites have frequently been educated at the most exclusive British or American universities. They like expensive Italian cars. Money is money.
Meanwhile Palestinians are born poor, in a failed state with no autonomy. Some UAE crypto influencer is yolo gambling away more money than most Palestinian kids will see in their lifetimes. They live under an occupation and have basically no rights in that regard. They are poor. Just google image a picture of Gaza vs the UAE. It just doesn't even compare. Maybe on some level they are both Arabs. But the same rule applies. Money is money.
The gulf state governments gave up on trying to care about them many many decades ago. They realized it was cheaper (and more prosperous) to go along to get along with the United States and Israel. If they hadn't, their capitals might look like Tehran right now. Over the years it became easy to blame other people for the problem - Iran, even the Palestinians themselves. They have long since washed their hands of caring.
Don't conflate the Gulf States with Palestinians, or associate them with anyone on the losing side of anything when it comes to money and power. They are as corrupt and bought-in to this system of wealth/might makes right as anyone.
Don't elect a geriatric compromise candidate. The current administration's excesses create a massive opportunity for a pendulum swing. It's really not that hard. Hold yourself, your neighbors, your family and your friends accountable for who they vote for. And as tempting as it is, don't give into cynicism. It will take work but change for the better is always possible, and really in America, is far less out of reach than it would often seem.
reply