That’s of course a free speech issue. But the contrast between the alleged deep commitment to free speech claimed by many Americans and the fact that this issue wasn’t that much of a deal-breaker in support for the current US administrator suggests that theatrics and ostentatiousness are a significant driver of free speech polemics.
When I was living in the US I didn’t find local polemics about free speech to be convincing.
It honestly felt more like a theatrical way to highlight one’s alleged “independent” mindset and virtues. It just didn’t seem genuine.
Recent development have largely proven my thinking on this issue. Many Americans who claim to support “freedom of speech” don’t understand the concept and don’t really care about it (beyond theatrical repetition of phrases that they’ve heard other locals use).
While I too am skeptical of the true commitment of large section of the US population to freedom (in the real sense not in the American “I support free speech!” sense), I would not underestimate the fundamental unpredictability of history.
Not a fan of Lenin, but the notion that “there are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen" is a powerful observation of human history and behaviour.
Not saying this is going to be a inflection point, but there are always steps to reach a given inflection point.
Even hunting DEA agents is a massive stretch.
On a purely cost-benefit analysis basis, hunting for DEA agents is simply not worth it, it makes more business sense to take the loss and focus on the fact that drugs will continue to be profitable until there is full decriminalization (of any drug consumption) and legalization of less harmful drugs.
Sounds like propaganda.
Cartels tend to be relatively cautious on US soil and make a genuine effort to avoid generating heat. There is limited benefit for them to get engaged in something like this especially considering the politically sensitive nature of targeting ICE specifically.
It’s not impossible for one or two individuals to “take matters in their own hands”, but I can’t see this being a blanket policy implemented by senior leaders of multiple cartel groups.
79 is not that young. Life expectancy for women in the US seems to be ~82 (I thought it would be higher considering how rich the US is). And at that age even somewhat minor medical issues tend be more demanding and impactful.
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Trump can’t tell the difference (initially) between X2 step by step 45% increases (which would result in ~110% increase from base), versus two 45% percentage point increases (which would be 90% from base).
From the few articles I read, Trump was refering to percentage points, not actual step by step percentage increases.
Situational data and secret stockpiles and facilities. That’s the type of data the US could help with.
I hope this is true, but I have my reasons for not trusting the US.
This should have been done in early 2022, threats and violence is the only things the russians understand (just at look at the history of russia and show me one major example of good faith behaviour on the part of the russians).
Agreed that they are expensive. But a massive invasion with many people losing their lives and destruction to the country is also expensive.
Yes, the best option would be a Baltics/Scandinavia/Poland/Ukraine/Moldova nuclear alliance.
Ukraine already has ballistic missiles that can reach ~1,000 Km. It’s not an ICBM, but the targets are Moscow, St Petersburg and Nishniy Novgorod, not Chukotka.
Why is is unreasonable to get nuclear weapons for smaller countries?
I am from Ukraine and we are the only country in the world that has given up nukes and look how that worked out.
I too would be curious to read the details of the lecture notes.
The whole thing almost sounds like farce.
Shit tier site.
A recent article:
Escalation in the Baltics: NATO exploits alleged airspace violation by Russian jets for new war escalation
Last Friday, the Estonian Defense Ministry reported that three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets had entered Estonian airspace for several minutes. While the government in Tallinn and NATO allies immediately branded the incident a “provocation” by Moscow, the Kremlin firmly rejected this account. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, there had been no border violation. The aircraft were on a transfer flight from a base in northwestern Russia to the Kaliningrad exclave and had been flying “in strict conformity with international rules governing airspace with no violation of the borders of other states as is confirmed by independent checks.”
In fact, even the map published by the Estonian military indicates that the jets flew parallel to the border and were on a transit route. Nevertheless, the incident is being exaggerated by European governments and the mainstream media to further escalate the confrontation with Russia.
Why post about such an important using content from degenerate tankie roaches?
The site is a giant shithole, but as the saying goes even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Mainly due to his political views.
I am just curious, what exactly were these political views? And why do you think they are legitimate and not demagoguery?
The reason I am asking is that while living in the US, the impression I got is that most polemicists were demagogues. It was a method to get money, grifting so to speak.
This was a while ago, but I vividly remember several nominally anti-abortion politicians getting caught getting their mistresses pregnant and then pressuring the mistresses to get an abortion.
It’s incredible that the fellow got fired over such a truthful and insightful comment.
I was in the US in my late teens, and one thing I realized almost straight away was how shallow American polemics about any socio-political topics were. American “free speech” polemics (among all other polemics) to me seemed like an attempt to act out and engage in theatrics that had nothing to do with the concept of free speech (which is actually an extremely complicated and nuanced topics).
There is a silver lining to this, I think at least some people (on the margin) might stop treating local polemics as undeniable truth.
Fascinating stuff. Although from the time I was living in the US, Kirk seemed like a relatively low level public demagogue and grifter.
This is honestly really funny in an absurdist, black humour kind of way.