He’s implying that he thinks that someone should, but even the literal point he’s making is not true.
(Justin)
Tech nerd from Sweden
He’s implying that he thinks that someone should, but even the literal point he’s making is not true.
I mean even before the war ends, 19% interest is not stable. Capital investment has fallen to a third of what it once was. (ignoring forced investments needed to workaround sanctions) The Russians will also run out of old Soviet stockpile weapons which will be a major hit to their GDP as Russia starts to go into recession.
This is worse than you think. Most countries don’t criminalize use, only possession. Criminalizing use like Sweden does likely means that even having cannabis in your system is illegal and could lead to fines, criminal record, and jail time. It’s insanely backwards.
Well I do, and I refuse to vote for politicians that support dictators. If everybody thinks like that, then even the most self-serving, jingoistic politicians have an interest in protecting human rights.
It would be great to have closer ties to Asia. The concern is the imperialist claims to Taiwan and the whole Xi dictatorship thing. We have already learned what trading with an imperialist dictator does to Europe after Putin. Just blindly jumping into a closer relationship with Xi without a carrot and stick and without building closer cultural ties to the Chinese, Tibetan, and Uighur people, will only backfire for Europe.
It’s not a cold war, a trade war, or any sort of economic competition thing, it’s just concern over the volatility and human rights issues of dictatorships.
As an aside, Sanchez is missing the fact that the EV tarriffs were implemented in response to excessive state aid by the PRC. It’s not good for him to promise to drop the tarriffs without committing to more negotiation regarding the EU’s concerns about state aid.
pretty sure Republicans care about counterpoints if their counterpoint to “Republicans are shutting down the govt” is “them illegals!”. The correct reply is “your kids!”
That’s the counterpoint. The data shows that it was already illegal for “illegals” to vote and there are no reported cases of it. However, there are hundreds of cases of republicans using this law to prevent (your) college students from voting. If you have a son or daughter away at college, do they have their birth certificate with them so they can register to vote?
The Republicans are trying to prevent college students from voting with this bill.
She could have always asked for a different ring. This ring wasn’t what was wrong with that relationship. it is hilariously awful though.
6% is low and 3% is lower
You’re mixing two different kinds of inequality here, The top graph is wealth (aka savings), while the bottom one is income. Wealth is the much harder one to crack, and Sweden actually has much higher wealth inequality than all of the other countries being compared.
It’s worth noting that one of the main reasons that Sweden has relatively equal income before tax is because of the way the tax system works. Because social security contributions cap out at ~$70k/year, similar to the US, but there is no similar cut off for social security payroll taxes, employers generally pay their employees in dividends and private pensions instead of income, above that $70k level. Taxes are generally flat in Sweden, though.
- a swede
is the modern one right? Why are there two bars per quintile? Isn’t the top 10% above 90% of the populations wealth?
A tale of selfish betrayal as old as time
How else does Macron expect to get a majority behind Barnier? He already rejected a technocrat coalition with NFP. Macron is obviously expecting to get support from Le Pen in return for a cordon sanitaire on the socialists.
Ah yes, an Ensemble-Republicains coalition with 38% of seats is totally a “majority” and will totally survive. This was totally better than the 65% majority coalition proposed by the NFP around Lucie Castets before Ensemble decided that they decided center-left was too extreme for them.
Macron is clearly running to Le Pen to save himself from getting impeached.
Just a historical comparison I’m making based on the Wikipedia articles for the Kosovo War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
A NATO-facilitated ceasefire between the KLA and Yugoslav forces was signed on 15 October 1998, but both sides broke it two months later and fighting resumed. When the killing of 45 Kosovar Albanians in the Račak massacre was reported in January 1999, NATO decided that the conflict could only be settled by introducing a military peacekeeping force to forcibly restrain the two sides.[50] Yugoslavia refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords, which among other things called for 30,000 NATO peacekeeping troops in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory; immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law; and the right to use local roads, ports, railways, and airports without payment and requisition public facilities for its use free of cost.[51][35] NATO then prepared to install the peacekeepers by force, using this refusal to justify the bombings.
It took years of fighting, but eventually both sides’ refusal to sign a ceasefire was used as justification for NATO to neutralize the military forces in the region.
The issue is that Israel is an apartheid state, as understood by the UN. It’s one thing if civilians on annexed territory had equal rights as Israeli citizens, but instead civilians are treated inhumanely in violation of international law. Civilians are tried in military court, evicted from their homes by occupying settlers, and generally do not have equal rights under the law.
It is a concerted effort not just to annex territory, but also to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from occupied land. Ethics regarding annexation aside, the war in Israel isn’t about simple annexation.
You’re describing genocide. That is not what is happening in Kursk.
See article 49 of the Geneva convention:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-49
Civilians, by definition, do not “willingly engage in a war”.
His coaching from his campaign is showing through. They desperately want him to be the law and order candidate, “weathering the storm from the militant left”, but he just can’t help but attack the left and encourage further violence. He will sabotage his own campaign and image if he starts encouraging violence here.