When I say I believe the universe is fundamentally good I am merely the superiority of a FAITH in truth and the ultimate goodness of the universe with the inferior FAITH in some book that has a talking serpent and a talking donkey. They are both types of faith. — Art48

Sorry, I didn't understand this part.

Exactly. But when one is stupid and full of oneself, one doesn't even notice how fucked up the whole situation is from the start.

Trump is just “defending our institutions”. — NOS4A2

Just what institutions I ask? In his press conference, Trump mentioned oil 20 times while he didn't mention drugs, war on drugs or democracy at all. That's quite telling just what "institutions" the sick fuck is values.

And it probably hurts knowing that the exiled opposition leader in Venezuela dedicated her Nobel peace prize to your favorite president last year, isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

Lol, Trump threw Maria Machado immediately under the bus, didn't even bother to mention Edmundo Gonzales, but was eager to tell that they were in contact with Maduro's vice president Delcy Rodriguez.

Trump idiocy as ever. Then claim that he's going to run Venezuela without any troops on the ground and the Chavista-regime quite in control of the country still.

Now you know. — NOS4A2

Actually, I don't. And neither do you.

Just how is this going to work out? What if the Chavistas don't simply surrender?

and your high-horse leaders just sat around and let him repress his citizens, as they’ve done all over the world. So much for “defending our institutions”. — NOS4A2

You are just contradicting yourself. So now you are in favor of nation building?

How well it went in Iraq? That country too had oil.
How well it went in Afghanistan?

Whose plan is it?

The way I understand it, Putin, Xi JInping and Trump are in a quid pro quo threesome, each concerned with their own imperialist goals. — Questioner

To break the Atlantic tie between the US and Europe, just as to hinder the European Union has been a plan of Russia for a long time. So the Russians are quite honest when they say that Trump's plan matches their plans. This is a dream come true for the Kremlin.

Perhaps it's just the absolute idiocy of Trump that he indeed wants to divide the World when there wasn't any need for division. Just as he thinks the EU was made to fuck the US, not an European response to two devastating World Wars.

I concede that maybe I shouldn't have used the world "superpower" to describe Russia. Maybe "power at play" would have been more accurate. — Questioner

Whose power play is this?

Next stop, Greenland. Trump wants it.

Oh, the White House has a plan today. It'll be different tomorrow. And then a totally different the next month. And so on....

Hence the Folk is correct. :wink:

There’s a plan in place to carve the world up into three superpowers. — Questioner

No. This is actually a plan to get rid of the US from being the sole Superpower. And Trump is eager to carry out his role, if he gets the billions he wants.

First of all, Russia isn't a superpower and China won't ever overtake the US, even if it came very close to overtaking it, thanks for mainland China not being Taiwan (in which case China would have already taken over the role of the US) and thanks for China being run by Marxist-Leninists who think they've used enough capitalism and now can go back to communism. And also by the "one child" policy now creating a huge decrease in the Chinese population. So actually, there was only one Superpower. Hence when you say that there are three Superpowers, you have already swallowed the Kremlin/Beijing rhetoric. Where does this defeatism come from?

Here is the perennial misunderstanding just why the US has the position it's enjoys today (which is obvious with this White House).

First and foremost, the US never started building a sphere of influence where it dominates others by the threat of violence and by a policy of divide et impera. Subject countries can understand when they are ruled by Divide et impera, and won't be enthusiastic about it.

The US chose a totally different way.

It formed an international system where it provided security especially on the global sea trade routes and in containing the other Superpower, the Soviet Union. The "International Order", that Trump sees now as the enemy for the US, was the way that the US created it's own "sphere of influence", which was voluntary and very beneficial to it's members, the allies of the US. It formed treaty alliances, of which NATO was successful and SEATO and CENTO were not. (Btw Peter Zeihan has talked extensively about this.)

Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO forces have never occupied a member state that was on "the verge of being disloyal" to the US. Yet the Warsaw Pact did this police action for the Soviet Union in 1956 and especially in 1968, which was the greatest military success, a successful "special military operation", that the Soviet Union ever had. Russia tried to copy the successful "Operation Danube" in Chechnya and in Ukraine and failed on both occasions to achieve a result as in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO has been a treaty alliance where states have voluntarily joined to, which is something that the Pro-Kremlin speakers ardently want to deny. The member states have truly built their defense on a common defense that is NATO. This is totally different from the Warsaw Pact and also from the failed organizations of CENTO and SEATO. Yet with Trump, the future of NATO is in question.

Now the enemies of the US are gleeing in delight on what is happening to the US with Trump. The US is shedding the system that earlier generations have worked for this system. That the Kremlin rejoices the US National Security Strategy should tell this to the astute observer. That the US hasn't created any alliances when confronting the Maduro regime (or should one talk now of the Bolivarian regime) tells just how clueless the White House is now. Trump is threatening the president of Columbia and the response of Brazil (and Mexico) to the strikes in Venezuela leave no doubt how Latin America is seeing this.

Watched your video.

So you come to the conclusion that the superior faith is "faith in truth itself, and in the reasonable and goodness of the universe", better than believing in the ancient stories that traditional religions give us.

First of all. I thin it's naive to think that religions are about truth. They aren't. Sure, they proclaim that they are the truth, yet notice what answer they give: that it's faith, not reason. Religions give us a moral compass on just what is right and what is wrong. They do give us also creation stories and tell us what happens after we die, yet especially the part what happens after we die is still linked to how we live our life (and hence is about doing the good and not bad).

These moral questions are SUBJECTIVE. Now how can one or any religion justify that it's answers on moral questions are correct? Well, as the question are subjective and not objective, their answer is universal: it's a question of faith. You don't deduce from facts that a God or Gods exist, you take him (or them) as an issue of faith. Never does ANY religion say that you will find God, if you just use your brain enough. What religions say is that they have to be taken into ones heart. Hence religions even themselves understand that the questions of what is right or wrong, good or bad, cannot be answered in an objective way using logic.

Also, note that religions when giving answer to moral/ethical question that are inherently subjective attempt to give an objective answer by having the ultimate subjective, God (or Gods). So why is something good or bad? Because God says so. God (or Gods) are all powerful, so that's your "objective" answer.

Furthermore, you are falling into a trap where many atheists fall when you assume that "the universe is good". What science just says is that "the universe exists". Existence isn't good or bad. Questions on just what is good or bad are different form the question what exists in reality and what doesn't. There simply is a reason just why Ethics and Moral Philosophy is a different branch from Logic. You cannot simply combine them! Yet many atheists just assume that "goodness" simply emerges from humanity.

Truth itself is something that needs objectivity, you have to have logical premises to make a model of reality, where you can then in the logical system state if things are true or false. Science is one system like that, it gives models about reality, but note that science doesn't at all answer to what would be good and what bad. That's a question for religion, and faith. This is an error that many atheists do when believing that science can give us answers on ethical questions.

Secondly, where does this assumption of the goodness of the universe come from? It's quite out there as is the "ancient stories" you mock religions give. Well, the dominant religions of the present emerged in the time of Antiquity, so it's obvious that the writings were for an audience for a past time. Yet the message that holds on even today are the answers that religions give to ethical questions.

If only that comment would be sarcasm. With you, I'm not so sure:

Trump Has Dropped the Price of One Thing: Cocaine

Trump has now his own "special military operation", attempting a regime change and trying to "run Venezuela" and get the oil in Venezuela into US hands. Trump was extremely clear about this when addressing the nation after the strike.

Yet nation building was what you wanted and why you voted for Trump, right? :blush:

Perhaps indeed he will now go annex Greenland.

I'm sure you would agree that this administration is capable of acting without any clear long term plan. — boethius

Not just capable, but simply acts without any clear long term plan. Or then "the plan" is illogical mixture of right-wing ideology and increasing Trump's personal wealth without any thought on the long term effects.

Trump didn't do this for fighting the war on drugs or to restore democracy in Venezuela. If either was the truly the agenda, then Trump simply wouldn't have talked so much about "running Venezuela" and having the Venezuelan Oil for US companies. Venezuela nationalized it's oil in 1975/76, so that was far earlier than the Maduro regime and then the US oil companies were compensated for their loss. When Trump talks about taking back the oil, he really means it.

Trump truly says what he is thinking. No amount of Marco Rubio ,or someone else, trying to make it the issue being about something else matters. And the response from the Democrats has been very condemning.

Yeah, apparently we're going to be running Venezuela. We're so good at that sort of thing. — RogueAI

Yep. Do notice the irony when Trump says that this won't cost anything to the US because Venezuela has oil. Yes, indeed the same line was given when Bush invaded Iraq.

Yet note that actually after this decapitation strike, the US doesn't now have boots on the ground (other than CIA and special forces, I guess). And how far will 15 000 troops go with occupying a country of 28 million people? 2003 invasion of Iraq was done with 130 000 US troops, which then had to be grown to 160 000 troops. By comparison Bosnia needed a stabilization force of 60 000 for a country of 3,5 million, which actually worked well and the country could be pacified.

So just how the Trump team will "run Venezuela" is to be seen.

So unclear at the moment what the plan actually is to run Venezuela. — boethius

Well, Trump did say just a while ago that they will run Venezuela.

Presumably they cut a deal with Venezuela's vice-president to capitulate to all demands, as that would make sense, but definitely things do not need to make any sense. — boethius

Just what this "deal" will be isn't so easy.

Now it's possible that he will act similarly as after the Iran strikes, but what we heard from him, this seems to be not the case.

Chaos? Civil war? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think they want to install that Nobel Prize winner, Maria Machado. — RogueAI

Trump in his media conference said that he (and the US) haven't been in touch with her and Trump didn't see her be fit to rule the country. So Machado it's not going to be. Trump said that the US will now rule Venezuela. Rubio seems to have had a long conversation with the Maduro-regime vice president, but Trump was quick to point out that she was part of the Maduro regime.

That would be the feat, if somehow now the US could install Maria Machado to be the President. Unlike in Panama, the US doesn't control the ground in Venezuela. At least the defense minister of Venezuela was quite adamant in the opposition towards the US.



From the military viewpoint, it might seem as a cakewalk: US transport helicopters (Chinooks etc.) and AH-1 attack helicopters roaming over Caracas obviously shows that the Venezuelan air defenses were not alert at all and didn't put up a real fight. Why would the US get such total surprise is beyond me.

One commentator said it quite well, if people will come to celebrate the overthrow of Maduro in the opposition held places, that is telling. If they don't show up and it's just the regime crowd, that is also very telling. Now, naturally those Venezuelans in exile are jubilant, but the real issue what happens inside the country.

Maybe people will be glad Maduro is gone and will welcome a change? — RogueAI

Depends on the change that actually Trump has in mind for Venezuela and it's people.

It's not like the Middle East, where you have historic enmities like Shia vs Sunni Vs Kurds. — RogueAI

Yes, but Venezuela is politically polarized even more than the US. Millions of those that have opposed the Maduro regime have fled the country. Has work been done with these people?

We should all be glad Maduro is gone. — BitconnectCarlos

Who wouldn't be. Do notice that here even on the PF there's not been support for Maduro. I remember that some PF members were supportive of Hugo Chavez in the early years, but that's it.

Now onto the democratic transition of power — Maduro did not represent the people of Venezuela. — BitconnectCarlos

And how is that going to happen? And even if Maduro obviously didn't represent all the people of Venezuela, we'll soon find out just how many he did represent.

But anyway, Trump is really now in the "nation building" business, even if he denies it. But "running the country" is exactly that.Trump has declared that now the US will be leading the country, so the idea that this would have been just an operation to get Maduro isn't so as the objective is to get the Venezuelan oil fields (something that Trump spoke extensively about).



So Trump isn't now going to be attached to Venezuela. Is this the new Afghanistan for Trump, we will find out. And just like with Afghanistan, the real quagmire can be evident to everybody only after years from now. Perhaps like in Afghanistan or Iraq, now the Trump White House will pick the most friendly (read most willing to give wealth to Trump) Venezuelan to rule the country.

So we got the war.



If Maduro didn't go voluntarily, then we'll get the Delta Force -movie very quickly. (Which is nice, Navy Seals started to be annoying in the media after the killing OBL. Last time Delta did something so spectacular, it ended in a spectacular disaster in Iran (yet we got a Chuck Norris / Lee Marvin movie anyway).

But to the real issues. What now? Nation building? Unlikely, as this has been still just a military strike. Leave it as a failed state or what? Hope that something good comes out of this?

Actually the best thing would be for Trump just to declare victory and go home. Leave it to be a successful military decapitation strike. He likely won't win anything else better now, as taking the oil fields of Venezuela would mean a real invasion, which is a bad thing to attempt.

But if he stays in Venezuela, hope that all the Maga-people remember Trump's wars about ending the forever-wars and other bullshit from Donald.

The world typically doesn't want and resists change. That is until it can't any longer, and then things can change rather quickly.

If you look at human history 'gradualism' doesn't really seem like the norm, but rather periods of relative stability interspersed with rapid revolutions... punctuated equilibria. — ChatteringMonkey

This is so true. Everything stays rather the same, until there's a war or people somewhere simply get fed up with their bad situation and revolt or when the markets panic and we have a crisis that gives us an economic depression.

The US is widely considered by political scientists to be in decline. That's not a result of Trump. It's just that the world changes. — frank

Well, I would still remark that a lot that has happened has been self inflicted. Yet, think about it for a while from another perspective:

If the US is decline, where does that leave:

a) Europe?
b) China?
c) Russia?
d) the rest of the World?

When you actually look at all the places now a) - d), they don't actually look so great.

Heck, it's said that I live in the country where the people are the most happy. If that would be true, the World really, really sucks. In many ways, my little countries growth projections are similar to Japan, even if our population hasn't yet declined. Yet Japan shows that this doesn't mean that there will be an economic collapse, just low growth.



One of the interesting questions is how much of this decline and low economic growth is simply due to the demographic transition of countries. Decreasing populations don't create a reason for economic growth.

One of these days you're going to finally get that this a concern for you, not Americans. — frank

Not at all worried about losing your Superpower -status? Lol. Heck, the whole Trump revolution says in writing that this clearly isn't so: Make America Great again. So I guess that a lot of Americans, including future generations, will ask why it happened, if you lose the status.

There's nothing stopping the world from doing this. — frank

The "world" typically doesn't want dramatic changes. Change just is forced upon "the World" when a crisis hits and the effects are unavoidable. Sticking to the present status quo is usually the policy that the vast number of countries prefer. Hence changes don't happen in an instant.

And here it should be noted that there's a quite cacophony of different signals coming from the US.

First and foremost, Trump isn't the kind of politician able to be in control of the whole apparatus (for which actual leadership would be needed). He is more in control of his surroundings in the White House as in the first term (where he unintentionally chose "adults" to be in the room).

Usually Trump's "policies" are just aimless reactions with no clear objectives. Tariffs were surely the thing in his mind (for a long time), but he had to do his TACO. And now? Just look at what a quarter of the US Navy is doing in Venezuela: what on Earth is the objective? Likely the objective is just to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what would stick. Trump and the MAGA crowd (what's left of it) might want to do away with EU and NATO to the great satisfaction of Russia, but it's not so simple. Hence in this environment the Congress and actually the US Military are sending quite different signals as the Pro-Kremlin White House.

NATO and Denmark got through the first Trump administration with Trump not invading Greenland and the US breaching article 1. of the Washington treaty. So the question here is: why wouldn't we get through the next three years too? Then have the democrats regain the White House and it's likely back to something similar as earlier...

These changes take time.

?

You don't notice that the real tribute is the dollar being the reserve currency and your government having this "perpetual" credit of taking on enormous amounts of debt? That is the tribute system that has made you so wealthy and capable of spending so much on the military!

But notice the important aspect of this: this arrangement has been fruitful and reasonable for the allies of the US and they have been OK with this.

Other Great Powers countries, like Russia/Soviet Union, don't have and never had such alliances like the US has. Russia has now basically North Korea and a lukewarm yet difficult China. And China? Basically Pakistan, because of India. (Which shows just how warm the relations are between BRIC-countries.)

Bullying just goes so far, you know. And this is one of those issues that people don't get: sovereign European countries chose voluntarily to be in the US lead security structure. Once the Soviet empire collapsed, those former "allies" rushed away from Russia. And for a reason, as it should be obvious to everybody!

And what Trump and other American politicians never will say that it's the US itself that has wanted Europe to be dependent on the US. Because there's always "Strategic Autonomy", which you should note when European leaders talk. It's something that the US has been against.

Hence you can look at it from this angle: Why are European countries really trying to get to that 5% defense expenditure so eagerly? Because the US has transformed to be a very untrustworthy ally. That 5% defense expenditure will establish deterrence if the pro-Kremlin stooge in White House wants to shatter the Atlantic alliance.

But then comes the real question: without the US being the defender of Western institutions and the primary member and leader in it's alliances, why would dollar be the reserve currency anymore? Remember that we didn't get Bancor, we got the Bretton Woods system and after the default by Nixon, the petro-dollar system was too based on defense pact with Saudi-Arabia also. Not based on economics. There's absolutely no other real reason for other countries somehow deciding that the US dollar should be a reserve currency. The logical solution would have a basket of currencies, where the US dollar is the biggest currency (but not the sole currency).

An odd observation is that American voters appear to have chosen this path deliberately and obliviously; it doesn't help them in the longer term, especially those who are not well-off. — jorndoe

Many Americans don't understand that their present prosperity exists because of the vast alliance networks the US has been able to create, which has made the country into a Superpower. And many believe the total opposite, which Trump promotes, that the alliance structure is a burden to them. Which is nuts, but anyway, when people are ignorant, they can believe anything.

Do you believe the terror attacks there would not have occurred had they stronger censorship laws? — NOS4A2

No.

The response to terrorism from small cabals and individuals who are fighting for some messianic lunacy is very difficult. There's no one silver bullet. Let's just remember how small the cabal was that formed the "Al Qaeda" in September 2001. Yet an excessive response that undermines the democratic institutions themselves is counterproductive. Many terrorist organization actually intend to act this way: they attack the government in order for the government to "show it's real ugly faces", which then will create the actual revolution. The Red Army Fraction of West Germany was a case example of this, it's members were totally convinced that the West Germany government was actually the Third Reich in disguise and from their actions the true "Red Army" would emerge.

Not to treat a tiny group of criminals as criminals, but as an enemy in a war basically gives the terrorists credibility and undermines the institutions in a justice state. Just like Trump inventing that drug smugglers are "narcoterrorists".

ISIS is direct result from US actions in Iraq and has basically nothing to do with censorship laws. Yet do I consider that ISIS propaganda ought to be banned? Yes. Democracies have to defend themselves from those who do want to overthrow it's institutions. Is it a complicated issue? Sure.

Guess who else bans speech they do not like. ISIS. — NOS4A2

For extremists "freedom of speach" has always been only a vehicle to get their message spread and something that afterwards can be done away with as it poses a threat to them.

Brilliant. Now we don’t know who is espousing that message and are blind to the content of that message. After all, the aim of all censorship is ignorance. — NOS4A2

Oh, you get it so wrong. Prior the terrorist attacks, the UK police didn't care what was preached in various mosques or what kind of leaflets were distributed. When some people noted just what kind of hate speech was distributed, the answer given back to them was that there's "freedom of speech". Now it's different.

Attempt to distribute ISIS material and you will likely notice that even the Canadian security apparatus will take a notice of what you are doing, nos.

When nothing has happened there's actually indifference, then people and politicians hail things like freedom of speech. Yet once something bad happens, the same politicians are the first to brush aside "freedom of speech" issues in an instant. When the discourse changes to fighting terrorism, then all those rights seem to go out of the window. Populists like Trump and his cohorts are the perfect example, but usually even with the conventional American politicians this was obvious.

In fact, it takes really strong institutions in a society to sustain a justice state and things like freedom of speech, when a society is faced with a traumatic terrorist attack or something similar. Too people many cry for revenge and for them "following the laws" is too lax and just shows the failure of the state. Worst thing is if politicians are eager to give this crowd the blood what they cry for and disregard the law when doing it.

The Nazis were routinely censored. Hitler himself brought up the fact of this censorship in his debates and used it as justification to censor others. The one time censorship ought to have worked, it didn’t. — NOS4A2

One time, eh?

I think there's far more examples of "censorship" actually working and it being positive that the actions worked, even if freedom of speech is extremely important to a functioning democracy. Let's start from things like the ideological teachings and the propaganda of Al Qaeda and ISIS that aren't permitted to be freely distributed due to "freedom of speech" laws anymore. In the UK earlier their message could be openly published and publicly preached. Not anymore.

Now you may have your ideological views and believe that incitement isn't real, then start from the writings of those above mentioned terrorists and their texts where they incite people to kill all Americans, including civilians, being the correct thing to do. Perhaps that shows you better what incitement is than the historical and present example of incitement against the Jews.

There does exist actual hate speech, not just what the woke consider to be hate speech or the term just used as a rhetorical tool to denounce someone.

One might argue that it isn't censorship, but that is quite hypocritical.

It doesn't make sense. Just like the term "narcoterrorists" (something similar to "islamofascists" that the Bush administration came up with).

Trump and Maduro had actually before talks about Maduro leaving. Maduro made demands on in what situation he indeed would be leave. Trump didn't accept these. If Maduro cannot save face and resign and leave his own country yet leave his country intact (which would make him a hero in the eyes of his supporters), then likely he will be there until the bitter end.

This isn't a person that like the former Afghan president who was picked because he had a stellar academic career in the US (and just happened to had been born in Afghanistan).

What can actually happen is what already happened with Iran. The US makes a strike against Venezuela basically destroying it's Air Defences and then Trump declares a victory! And anybody in the US government who even thinks to doubt this let alone comment about it publicly will be fired.

And Maduro can simply continue in power (or the Bolivarian revolutionaries, if Trump is so lucky that he get's Maduro killed), and then blame everything on the US and claim that the opposition are just stooges of the murderous Americans.

And Latin American relations are extremely strained, especially when it comes to Trump.

Remember still this?

Trump, speaking in The Hague where he attended a NATO summit on Wednesday, said his decision to join Israel’s attacks by targeting Iranian nuclear sites with huge bunker-busting bombs had ended the war, calling it “a victory for everybody.”

He shrugged off an initial assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency that Iran’s path to building a nuclear weapon may have been set back only by months, saying the findings were “inconclusive” and he believed the sites had been destroyed.

“It was very severe. It was obliteration,” he said.

This might be one outcome. If Trump doesn't sail his armada to the waters Greenland, if the Epstein scandal heatens still up.

Animals in sanctuaries will naturally die when their lifespan has come to an end. — Truth Seeker

No, they will reproduce. You have to intervene for them to do what is the most natural thing for living things doing.

Cultivated meat is not a refutation of vegan ethics - it is evidence that society is already trying to escape the moral and environmental costs of animal farming without confronting them explicitly. — Truth Seeker

Hypocrite bullshit: Commercial enterprises aren't interested in moral ethics about eating meat, they are doing this for profit. But feel free to go with the advertising.

Monocropped soy and grain feeding billions of confined animals is one of the most ecologically impoverishing systems humans have ever created. Wild game tastes different precisely because it is not produced by that system - but scaling “wildness” to billions of humans is a physical impossibility, not a moral option. — Truth Seeker

I agree. Yet the simple fact is that we don't know all the things what provide the different taste and the healthiness of "wild" food. And that makes myself critical of just how "healthy" artificial food will be.

Again you are totally forgetting what drives our societies and economies: the market mechanism. Yes, you could just eat everything wild, plants and game, and live in a city. Your food budget just would be enormous, likely multiple times of an ordinary family.

It’s an argument for better food systems, better regulation, and justice-focused transitions, not for maintaining harm because alternatives are imperfect. — Truth Seeker

And I think those are quite important issues, just as is not to be cruel towards animals and part of the biosphere. Just smart animals, but that's it.

I recommend that we implement a Universal Basic Income and Facilities (e.g. free accommodation, healthcare, education, etc.) for all humans. This will end poverty globally. — Truth Seeker

Again here you go with your incredible hubris. Just who do you think will do this? Just how? Belief in a World government solving everything is extremely naive. The World doesn't work this way. Far better is to think about improvements that actually could be implemented and would get closer to the ideals.

We may not reach agreement - that’s fine. But dismissing the position as “utopian” sidesteps the central question rather than answering it:
If we can meet human needs without systematically harming sentient beings, why should harm remain the default? That’s the question I’m putting on the table. — Truth Seeker

In life living entities eating other living entities is totally normal and in my view, we are animals.

For you, there is no value in the life of a cow, because you have decided it's existence isn't worth wile, because it suffers. Well, even wildlife suffer, and do have usually a short and nasty life of hunger and disease. But that's OK for you. That's your basic problem and we won't reach an agreement.

But coming back to the actual subject of this thread, your world view is far more religious than scientific, even if you deny it.

I'm not sure how to get it across to you that Americans in general do not care what the US looks like to the rest of the world. At all. Nada. — frank

Part of America does get it. And they aren't happy about it. But as long as the economy doesn't tank, the Trumpsters will follow their leader into everything. A war Venezuela? Bring it on! Kash Patel informing us that Epstein never trafficked minors? Must be true then...

. I can’t see how American society can survive this seeing their highest office dragged down into the gutter and the President defecting to the Kremlin. — Punshhh

Never underestimate the power of denial. They'll simply deny it to happen. It's all fake news!

And the Americans already have their antidote for everything: Any criticism towards Trump is simply "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

What else?

And likely Susy really tells the ugly truth here:

“He wants to keep on blowing boats up until [Venezuela’s Nicolas] Maduro cries uncle,” Wiles said of Trump.

And I think that this is the brainfart that Trump is now following. He just assumes that if he blows up boats and seizes oil tankers that Maduro will cave in and flee to Cuba (or something similar).

Why on Earth would Maduro this?

This shows how absolutely incompetent this administration is. It worse as Trump has now around him Yes-men that will do anything he wants, unlike in the first administration when there were "adults in the room". The only thing that Trump can reach is the destruction of US image and standing in the World. Something that Putin will love to see.

Combine this with the common liberal view that that which cannot be justified by liberalism is "very problematic," and you arrive at a remarkably deep level of political incoherence. The pure liberal can't justify martial law, but it's so much worse than that. The pure liberal can't even justify the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Again, smoothing this over as if it were a minor problem with liberalism is wild. — Leontiskos

It's only a problem or incoherent when you take liberalism as the premis and then use logic to look at the consequences of what then all politics and laws should be like.

Even if you have liberalism, you also have collectivism, all the conservative and religious values etc that mold the behaviour of a society and these other ideas don't go, or have to go, hand-in-hand with liberalist ideology.

I think the real problem is that collectivism or ideologies based on the well being of the collective were utterly damaging nightmares in the 20th Century, namely Marxism-Leninism and Fascism/Nazism. Liberalism that starts from the individual has difficulties then to focus on the group or society as a whole. It simply assumes that as the society is made of individuals, then there's not much else than think of the society as just an aggregate of individuals. Well, people as part of a family or a larger group don't actually behave as the self-centered individual.

Right, and that's my point. I'm not sure how this fact can simply be smoothed over. — Leontiskos

It's a de facto part of a democracy. Having democracy and a justice state is just a safety valve (and something that gives legitimacy for power). The people (and their representatives) can still have quite illiberal tendencies. And one still needs for peace things like military deterrence.

Ideologies are fine when they are building blocks for actual policies. But if idealism and ideological purity is the only guiding light when you decide actual policies, you get zealots who basically throw the baby out with the bathwater and create enormous damage.

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine.

Domesticated farm animals are not natural species with independent ecological roles; they are human-engineered populations bred into dependence for human use. Ending their forced reproduction is not eradication - it is refusing to continue a harm-creating practice. — Truth Seeker

What about plants them? The plants we eat have been bred for thousands of years. We (or many urban dwellers) hardly eat any wild plants, actually.

In the end I will say this. If you have your ideology and stick to veganism, that's great, you surely have the right to do that and likely you have a healthy diet knowing the supplements you have to take. Yet if you push this, something that 1% of the population adheres to, as for everyone to adapt as a great transformation of the society and assume that everything would go just fine this bombastic plan of retirement homes for all of the Worlds livestock where in the end we waiting which will it be, Maude the cow from Thetford UK or Haru from Japan, that will be the last cow on Earth to die of old age, I beg to differ. I don't we'll reach here any agreement, because it's an utopian idea and basically as devastating as some Pol Pots idea of eradicating urban life, money and making everybody collective farmers.

* * *

Yet I think there's a possible future that might at first seem as answer to your hopes, but actually it isn't. And that's meat processed artificially in a lab.

Now, if that lab meat starts to be dirt cheap, you will know that the no hamburgers at McDonalds and others will come from a living cow...ever. If the production lab meat is one tenth of what a traditional livestock meat, then many people will prefer then the cheaper one. And knowing how corrupt the US food regulation is, health hazards will surely be downplayed. Yet this is the only way that traditional livestock will wither away partly, because of decreased demand, and hence it will become in the long run more costly or simply become the delicatessen of those that can spend it.

Just as with wild plants and plants produced in greenhouses, there's the flavor problem. That there's many for example mushrooms that we simply cannot grow ourselves shows just how limited our understanding of the biosphere is. Something that you cannot know being yourself as vegan, but there's a radical change in taste and in the healthiness when animals are fed with the monotone food of soy and grain or if they eat the variable diet in the wild of many different plants. In fact someone that hasn't any time eaten wild game, the taste will feel likely too strong. You might notice it in the difference in taste of wild berries in the forest near you and berries that you can buy at the Supermarket grown from Egypt/California/somewhere that are larger but less tasty.

Yet unfortunately if that lab meat will be so cheap and easy, perhaps advancing to make even the muscles of sirloin and tenderloin that we know, there is no reason why we wouldn't also get lab plants too. Likely these will be even worse tasting than our greenhouse based plants, but if a bag of artificially manufactured potatoes cost 5 dollars and potatoes grown in soil outside on a farm cost 10 dollars, then which one people will little money to spend will take?

Now as Trump is going after oil tankers, it's noteworthy what the response has been from Latin American countries:

Mexico:

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has urged the United Nations to “prevent any bloodshed” in Venezuela, as Donald Trump piled more pressure on the South American country.

“The United Nations has been conspicuously absent. It must assume its role to prevent any bloodshed and to always seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts,” the leftwing president told reporters the morning after Washington announced a blockade of “sanctioned oil tankers” entering or leaving Venezuela.

Brazil:

SAO PAULO, Dec 20 (Reuters) - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Saturday that an "armed intervention in Venezuela would be a humanitarian catastrophe" in the face of escalating actions from the United States toward regional neighbor Venezuela.

Colombia:

(Dec 3, the Guardian) Colombia’s president has warned Donald Trump that he risked “waking the jaguar” after the US leader suggested that any country he believed was making illegal drugs destined for the US was liable to a military attack.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the US president said that military strikes on land targets inside Venezuela would “start very soon”. Trump also warned that any country producing narcotics was a potential target, singling out Colombia, which has long been a close ally in Washington’s “war on drugs”.

Shortly afterwards, Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, hit back in a social media post, saying: “To threaten our sovereignty is to declare war; do not damage two centuries of diplomatic relations.” Petro also invited Trump to visit Colombia – the world’s largest producer of cocaine – to see his government’s efforts to destroy drug-producing labs. “Come with me, and I’ll show you how they are destroyed, one lab every 40 minutes,” he wrote.

Naturally Trump doesn't care at all of the neighboring countries or diplomacy. Building up any coalition to support US military actions is not his thing. Or seeking support or even listening the international organizations, which he hates with all of his guts.

(November 2025) Latin American and European nations issued a call for peace and dialogue following a high-level summit between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union (EU).

“We reiterate our opposition to the threat or use of force and to any action that is not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” read Sunday’s joint communiqué.

(November 25th 2025) The head of the Organization of American States (OAS) has urged the United States and Venezuela to de-escalate their tensions, warning that the region does not want a war.

Speaking at a virtual press conference, OAS Secretary-General Albert Ramdin said he supported efforts to counter organised crime but insisted they must adhere to international law.

"We don’t want any war in our hemisphere. Peace is truly, ultimately, what everyone in this hemisphere wants. No one wins in a war," Ramdin said.

He added that he was "not in favour of any incident leading to an escalation of a war-like situation."

"We must maintain the hemisphere as a zone of peace," he said.

And then there are very telling actions, for example what the UK intelligence services have done.

(CNN, Nov 12th) The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The UK’s decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America.

And it seems it isn't just the UK:

The US military operation against Venezuelan alleged drug traffickers coupled with threats by Donald Trump for a ground assault against President Nicolas Maduro have troubled European powers who retain strategically located territories in the Caribbean, observers say.

The concern of France, the Netherlands and the UK is such that they have started limiting intelligence sharing with Washington about the Caribbean over worries it could be used for strikes that would be considered illegal in their countries, according to officials and sources who spoke to AFP.

All this shows that if (when) US takes military action, Trump's own "special military operation", the response will be cool. Perhaps Bukele of El Salvador and Hungary's Victor Orban will cheer for Trump.

Seizing of oil tankers:

Maybe coincidental. — jorndoe

It isn't.

Check how many similarities you find with this speech from an US president in 2003. Do you find:
- The offender insists that they were victims of circumstance, forced into a situation beyond their control.
- The offender insists that their actions did not cause any harm or damage. "We're not really hurting anyone.
- The offender insists that the victim deserved it. "They had it coming."
- The offender maintains that those who condemn the offence do so out of spite, or are unfairly shifting the blame off themselves. "We're judged by hypocrites."
-The offender claims the offence is justified by a higher law or higher loyalty such as friendship.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

I think there's a lot in common, even if some things are different.

It's noteworthy what the above and the declarations of the Reichstag and Russia don't have is the following from George H.W. Bush speech from 1990:

In the last few days, I've spoken with political leaders from the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the Americas; and I've met with Prime Minister Thatcher, Prime Minister Mulroney, and NATO Secretary General Woerner. And all agree that Iraq cannot be allowed to benefit from its invasion of Kuwait.

We agree that this is not an American problem or a European problem or a Middle East problem: It is the world's problem. And that's why, soon after the Iraqi invasion, the United Nations Security Council, without dissent, condemned Iraq, calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from Kuwait. The Arab world, through both the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, courageously announced its opposition to Iraqi aggression. Japan, the United Kingdom, and France, and other governments around the world have imposed severe sanctions. The Soviet Union and China ended all arms sales to Iraq.

And this past Monday, the United Nations Security Council approved for the first time in 23 years mandatory sanctions under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. These sanctions, now enshrined in international law, have the potential to deny Iraq the fruits of aggression while sharply limiting its ability to either import or export anything of value, especially oil.

I pledge here today that the United States will do its part to see that these sanctions are effective and to induce Iraq to withdraw without delay from Kuwait.

This was the time that the US would use the international rule based order it itself had built after WW2. I think this was the real apogee of US power and afterwards it's been really downhill from that.

Doubtful that China would just go randomly sink a carrier.

If the US imposes a blockade that is a clear act of war and if then China retaliates that would be unlikely to be a "Pearl Harbour" moment but opinion would be mixed, even if a carrier got sunk. — boethius

Doubtful that Trump would just go randomly to impose a blockade of China.

The problem is if China declares a blockade against Taiwan, which it sees as an the renegade province, and then US tries to run it. This is totally realistic, just look at the Mission statement of the US Navy:

The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President.

The US has a dubious history of giving the wrong signals for countries (just like Saddam's Iraq before it's invasion of Iraq) and hopefully China won't fall for this, even if Trump would send the wrong signals to it (look do whatever you want with Taiwan). And anyway, any kind of blockade has the possibility of things getting out of control and warships being sunk.

This is something that now could happen in Venezuela, where after sinking "narcoterrorist" speed boats the next vessels the US Navy could be sinking are the ships of the Venezuelan Navy now escorting the oil tankers. Then we'll see if the Trump is again the TACO he has been.

Russia prepared intensively for 8 years to cut industrial ties with the rest of Europe and it had the backing of China to accomplish that. — boethius

Do you references to this?

So, is your hypothesis that the US could just flip a switch and not only stop trading with China but potentially the whole of East-Asia? Or then that the US is now pursuing creating full redundancy and that will be ready in X amount of time and then the blockade will occur. — boethius

One sunk US aircraft carrier, or an other major surface combatant sunk, would be enough to give the US a "Pearl Harbour"-moment, and then any economic ties to China are totally irrelevant.

Oh, you don't have the low price gadgets from China? You don't have the latest chips from Taiwan? You have a recession and supply difficulties as international trade shuts down? Big deal. Increased arms manufacturing takes care of the recession. That ordinary people have to tighten their bealts? People have seen and done that, when it's wartime.

Russia gives a great example of this. If a state commits to war, economic hardships don't matter. They start only to matter when there literally isn't enough food around and people starve. The fallacy here is that Americans can get bored about war in Vietnam or in Afghanistan. Yet that's not the same as if they feel that they are attacked by a true rival like China.

So you're right, the US bought a cold war for itself, not with a hawkish post-war stance, but with the decision to use atomic bombs on Japan. — frank

Yep. I'd put the emphasis on "Cold" part.

Indeed only because of nuclear weapons did the US and Soviet Union have so little amount of armed skirmishes. Otherwise it likely would have been the US and Soviet Union having many limited conflicts, at least, just like France and the UK had these colonial wars all around the World before. Now the conflicts were usually fought with proxies.

Only now Pakistan and India have shown that two nuclear armed countries can have conventional, but limited armed clashes without the conflict escalating to a nuclear war (something they have done now twice). Something similar happened between the US and Soviet Union only during the Korean War in the "Mig Alley".

(Only know we have the real picture)

This was a clear case. Thanks for the time to explain and give the reasons. Far better than just to say "banned for homophobia".

I completely disagree. If someone is arrested on false grounds they have had their freedom removed. If you had to spend the night in a cell, and suffer the indignation of being hauled away, then I think this is a major issue. — I like sushi

I agree with this, so I think you aren't getting my point here. Or do you consider that a sentence on false grounds is less of a breach of one's freedoms? I don't think so.

Not taking this seriously can lead to people being arrested on trumped up charges simply because there is a political motive to do so. That the conviction goes through is way worse, but the root of the problem lies in false arrest rather than false prosecution. — I like sushi

Again, I'm not saying here that we shouldn't take arrests on false charges seriously.

This happened due to social media. When I was growing up and you heard of this or that crime being committed the identity of the perpetrators were kept mostly out of the public eye. The world has changed, that is all. — I like sushi

I agree with this.

I assume that now simply the incitement toward hate crimes (or something equivalent to it) is extremely easy to make and thanks to the vitriolic discourse in the social media, people participate in the social media can be judged then on incitement. One real cause is the lack of refereeing: if someone has for example here on PF such opinions that can be seen as incitement, they will be quickly banned. Earlier when public discourse was in the opinion pages of newspapers, there were the referees of the paper itself on just what was published.

The whole notion that opposition to immigration, or transgenderism, or Islam, is per se wrong, is a classically liberal position. In our day and age the problems with liberalism are becoming increasingly obvious, and the ruling class in Europe is slow to admit this. — Leontiskos

I think here you are mixing liberal idealism and practical statecraft and thus argue that liberalism hinders the latter. Even now in laws we universally do have things like martial law in a case of hostile attack, which hinder dramatically the liberal freedoms we have in peacetime. Thus liberal democracies are totally capable and do have legislation that basically is illiberal.

We have representational democracy (and yes, career politicians running it) to solve these political problems, be they ideological or moral.

The US also has laws against incitement; the difference is only with regards to hate speech.

I say this because some posters are saying that in the US you couldn't be arrested for a "mean tweet" but in fact if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either. — Mijin

This is quite hypocritical, because burning down hotels is basically terrorism, and the US has very harsh legislation against terrorism and even performs extrajudicial actions when it comes to terrorism. The US can kill and has killed it's own citizens, even under aged ones, without any trial or legislative process, but by a decision by the US President. And this was totally accepted even before Trump defined drug smugglers to be "narcoterrorists" and disregarded even the laws of war while killing them.

In fact during the War on Terror, legal experts in my country noticed that giving financial aid to terrorist organizations gave far longer sentences than murdering several people (committing an act of terrorism itself). This because the US insisted that countries would have similar legislation it had on this subject and Finland complied with this.

Yet of course, for totally similar actions, people won't be giving a sentence for of hate speech in the US.

Hence it's whimsical to argue that the US would uphold a justice state more than the European countries. It would be similar to arguing that except for Scotland, because Scotland does have the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 while England and Wales have no laws against hate crimes directly, the UK doesn't convict people because of hate speech.

This is precisely the point Rowan Atkinson was making. It is not credibility to the system if someone is falsely arrested. Someone should not be arrested for such acts in the first place. — I like sushi

People shouldn't get falsely arrested. Yet actually convictions are where the actual issue lies. Anyone can make claims that this or that person's public views are basically hate speech etc. First level is if someone takes this to court or a prosecutor makes a case of it. The real issue is there is if someone gets a conviction. Just like Trump is now behaving by going after people he doesn't like, many of these cases have been thrown out of court.

The Telegraph revealed last month that a unit in Whitehall was keeping tabs on people who complained online about the UK’s unfair justice system, in case this “exacerbated tensions.” A leaked government report from early this year also warns that those who are concerned about two-tier policing feed into an “extreme right-wing narrative.”

I think this started in the UK with the grooming gang scandal. If it happened earlier, please let me know.

The solution to this is simply transparency: never, ever hide the statistics or the ethnicity of convicted felons. Do not give an impression that you are hiding something, nothing erodes public trust more and gives credibility to issues like. Also treating ethnic groups differently, if they react differently to arrests etc. is a very bad strategy.

Just to give an example of how political leadership can dismantle political landmines: When Finland closed totally it's border with Russia and stopped to follow the earlier guidelines on treating asylum seekers as before, several legal experts raised questions of this going against the current laws. The Prime Minister simply acknowledged this indeed "this was very problematic", yet that national security overrode this. The Russian intelligence services were actively pushing undocumented immigrants to the border (something that was extremely easy to verify from interviewing the immigrants) and making a "hybrid attack" in this way, which everybody understood. There was no criticism from EU, which understood the situation.

This is perhaps something that many politicians don't understand: you have to talk about the actual problems and difficulties and especially not give some fringe group to be the only one noting the issue, be they on the right or the left. If you simply refuse to admit there is no issue, this only gives credibility to the fringe group, which likely has utterly destructive and self-defeating extremist answers to handle complex policy issues (like we see now in Germany, where the ADF is pushing to divide German citizens to a two-tier standard).

Why? People are falsely arrested in other countries too. — I like sushi

Arrests are one thing, convictions are another. I think the question is if in the UK these arrests/convictions are multiple times more than in other OECD countries.

Individual cases don't tell so much. There can be these "accusations of a horse being gay"-incidents or something. These are the incidents Elon Musk fills his X to bash the Starmer administration. Individual cases yet tell only so much as you can obviously find them everywhere. For example one ex-minister of justice in Finland was accused of hate speech when she referred quotes from the Bible. Yet the case was immediately dismissed by judge, which brought credibility to the system.

The British example is indeed interesting.

Naturally this question is about the various hate speech laws or in the UK case, similar laws and the implementation of these laws, which are various in the UK (starting from legislation like the Football Offences Act of 1991, which prohibits indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches). The ordinary type of libel suits that happen between individuals isn't here the focus. People participating in public and political discourse is the real issue here.

It is not a new thing. People have been arrested for doign next to nothing many times in the UK. — I like sushi

This seems a bit odd to (us) foreigners, who don't know so well the UK legal system and the actual practices.

One simple reason can be that the UK police simple focuses far more on social media/public speech than other countries and is far more active in going after for example "hate speech" than in other countries. Then the UK has for example Extremism Analysis Unit in the Home Office, that surveys Social Media. Anti-terrorism or simply going after football hooligans can create an environment where the police and intelligence authorities keep large databases and simply follow activities in a far more broader scope than in other countries. As the UK has had it's share of terrorism, this is totally understandable.

Here I think it's very important that authorities aren't biased in the surveillance of different extremists. For example the US authorities like the FBI were quite impartial (prior to Trump and Kash Patel etc) and went on to survey everybody, be it right-wing extremists or left-wing radicals, everybody from animal rights activists to pro-life groups attacking abortion clinics or white power groups.

This actually works, because In my view real damage happens when it is the perceived or actual is biased with differential treatment. What is essential is usually in these cases is transparency on the actions that the security establishment does.

But I'd gladly hear opinions or comments from Britons themselves here.

Ok but it has been the case for decades now that democracy hasn't delivered governments that align with the will of the people on key issues, immigration of course being the prime example. — ChatteringMonkey

In the Nordic countries this isn't the case.

The change in immigration policies is obvious and the change has been done for example in Sweden by the Social Democrats themselves. Danish and Finnish immigration has been limited also. Basically Europe isn't Angela Merkel's Europe anymore, but naturally the populists keep totally silent about this and portray there to be rampant totally unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries to Europe.

Immigration to Sweden: Notice the trend after 2017.


The only possible way to make a forecast that Sweden is becoming Muslim is simply to extrapolate the trend that ended in 2017 and assume similar (50 000 or more) refugees coming to Sweden. Because otherwise you simply don't get a 8% - 10% minority to grow to become the majority as forecasting several generations into the future is very difficult.

After WWII certain factions from the right have been systematically excluded from public debate and political power. — ChatteringMonkey

If we talk about fascists and authoritarian parties, certainly. And for a reason. Otherwise I think that the left is far too eager to paint nearly in the right to be part of the "extreme-right".

In my view, the basic problem is that populism emphasizes the "us-them" dichotomy, increases political polarization and basically opposes democracy. Why?Accusing a certain group of people being The argumentation is that democracy has lead to "the elite" to control, and this can be only replaced by strong leaders and a new elite made up by the populists themselves. Hence political corruption isn't fought against transparency and reinforcing the institutions, but with a populist takeover lead by a strong leader.

The irony of then Russian propaganda talking about the loss of freedom of speech in the EU. Remembering just how many reporters have been killed in Russia, in a country where simply saying a war being a war can get you jailed, for starters...