MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
No bio...
User ID: 896
They had two policewomen jog around with their camel toe's out (not joking, look at the photos). They do this for the same reason police in the US write tickets for people going 45 in a 30 instead of 90 in a 55. It's safer, easier, the person going a measly 45 is more likely to comply, and they just don't give a fuck.
Given that most 30mph limits exist for a reason (like "this is an urban street") whereas most 55mph limits in the US are a holdover from the oil crisis, I would (without further details) be much more worried about someone doing 45 in a 30 than 90 in a 55. And therefore I would support cops focussing on the former.
The man who is currently President of the United States, with the support of most Motteposters, did not want a rematch - he wanted to be inaugurated despite losing the election. He also called for criminal prosecution of various election administrators who had not committed crimes.
Also, you know as well as I do that Georgescu wasn't disqualified for what he did on TikTok, he was disqualified for paying for it with illegal foreign donations. Which is something the Trump admin is also happy to spam calls for criminal prosecution over.
This argument worked great some decade ago, when Europe could plausibly claim to be as free as the US. When they're canceling elections because the wrong candidate won,
I note, without comment, that my most downvoted posts on the Motte are those claiming, correctly, that the 2020 US Presidential election was not rigged.
And I'm saying that someone who is violent and drugged up is significantly more lethal with a gun than without one.
And the way American police are trained reflects this. American police treat a random violent drugged up person as an immediate lethal threat because of the high probability that they are concealed carrying. Non-American police don't. This is a large part of why American police shoot so many more people (of varying degrees of innocence) than non-American police.
The obvious counter-examples being Canada and Switzerland, first world nations which have similar rates of gun ownership to the US but nowhere near as much gun violence, suggesting the problem is a cultural or demographic one rather than with guns in and of themselves.
Private handgun ownership in Canada and Switzerland is not high. Essentially all the excess "gun deaths" (suicides and homicides) in the US are handgun deaths.
I agree this doesn't answer the question of "Why don't other countries with large-scale private long gun ownership see more media-friendly spree killings?" But if you care about body count, the reason why US gun culture is more lethal than Canadian or Swiss gun culture is the type of gun.
The origin of the meme "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" is that various WW2-era generals (of whom Montgomery was the first to go on the record in 1962) thought that Allied assistance to China in WW2 had been a mistake - presumably because Chiang and Mao preferred to use the aid to fight each other and not the Japanese.
If 10% of Gazas preward population had owned an AR, Israel never would have invaded.
IIRC at the point Israel invaded Gaza the alternative was not "abandon the campaign and go home", it was "continue bombarding it until there wasn't anything left standing large enough for a Hamasnik to hide behind".
I think Gaza is in the reference class of "A government which is willing to commit genocide and has access to tanks and bombing planes can defeat an insurgency regardless of however many small arms the insurgents have."
What's the acceptable rate of systemic murder?
That just reduces the question to an argument about the meaning of the word "systemic". The acceptable rate of men killing their wives is clearly greater than zero, given that it's a sizeable chunk of the overall murder rate and we don't spend a lot of resources trying to prevent it. It isn't obvious why this changes if the men are talking their wives into in appropriate MAID.
My impression is that Hawaiian nationalism is only for indigenous Hawaiians, who are <20% of the population - in other words Hawaii isn't plausibly a nation with its current demographics.
You're probably right about that one.
I agree that the Confederacy could have been a nation-state if it had successfully seceded, but it didn't, and I don't see a separate nation there in 2025 - the whole point of the "Red Tribe" meme is that the White South now sees its own grievances against the DamnYankees as a part of a broader small-town vs big-city and periphery vs core rebellion against a corrupt establishment. To its supporters, that rebellion speaks for, and deserves the support of, all patriotic Americans. It doesn't want a separate country, it wants to fix the one that exists.
My take on this is that the US is somewhat unique in being a nation founded on a proposition rather than blood, soil, or some historical what-have-you
This depends on whether you consider the UK and USSR to be nation-states, or whether you think they are multinational proposition-states. The process of creating a "British" identity on top of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Protestant Irish national identities (all of which are conventional land-ethnicity-and-culture national identities) in the 18th century was deeply propositional, with anti-Catholicism being the most normie-friendly part of the proposition at the time. Likewise the only thing that makes Lithuanians, Khazaks, Russians etc. "Soviets" is a (mostly fake) shared commitment to Communism.
My experience is that most normie Brits call England, Scotland and Wales "nations" and "countries" and call the UK a "country" but not a "nation". "National" normally implies UK-wide though. We are confused about the issue. The question "Are you an English ethno-nationalist, a British ethno-nationalist, or a British civic nationalist?" is mild kryptonite to nationalists in England. (British nationalists in Wales and Scotland are either unassimilated English migrants or uncomplicatedly civic nationalists)
The unusual thing about the US is that there isn't a set of subordinate ethnic-national identities that the civic identity is built on top of - the only state that is plausibly a nation is Texas. So civic nationalism is the only American nationalism that makes sense.
Another corner case is France - at the point it became necessary to turn Bretons, Gascons, Provencals etc. into Frenchmen quickly in order to get them to fight together, some but not all of the way Napoleon did it was propositional - France isn't just the land of baguettes and Moliere, it is also the land of liberte, egalite and fraternite.
827.04 Contributing to the delinquency of a minor seems to apply to dirty old men offering teenage girls cash for sex-adjacent acts.
The lost the intra-right culture war - BADLY, which means that if the right wins the big Culture War then the suit-and-tie crowd don't get the prize.
This is tied into actually dressing well being correlated with education/IQ/high-status white-collar work and so becoming left-coded as a result of the latest iteration of the Sort. Hence @die_workwear. The same is true of any high standard that requires consistent moderate effort to maintain - increasingly even ones that are explicitly right-wing like regular church attendance. (The most MAGA demographic is people who tick the Evangelical box on the census but only darken a church door at Christmas and Easter.)
In the world where MAGA have won the culture war, only faggots and an dwindling minority of aging churchladies wear tailored clothes or talk in complete sentences. Idiocracy was non-partisan, but in the current year Richard Hanania thought is correct on how the Brawndo-drinkers vote.
"The Feds" aren't a unitary actor here. The point of Wickard etc. is that Congress can regulate anything as long as it does so as part of a coherent scheme which mostly regulates interstate commerce. If Trump tries to punish states and municipalities which boycott Israel, it will be a statutory interpretation case about whether Congress did or not.
The American response was allegedly that Iran would be next.
Assuming that the purpose of a system is what it does, and liberally applying Occan's and Hanlon's razors, the best explanation of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy was that the US Deep State and Republican-aligned elites wanted to invade Iraq in order to replace Saddam with a government that would allow the US to attack Iran from Iraqi territory, and that 9-11 provided political cover. They obviously failed, but they could have succeeded if 9-11 hadn't made it politically unacceptable to include Al-Quaeda in an anti-Iranian coalition.
The US was not particularly pro Israel until Lyndon Johnson, who let himself get bossed around by his very pro-Israel foreign policy guys.
Also because Israel's leading enemies (at that point they were Egypt and Syria) had recently declared for the Soviet side in the Cold War. The reason why the US Deep State allowed the Israeli lobby in in the first place was mostly Cold War politics.
What does the US get by sending money to Egypt ?
It gets them to make nice to Israel. The reason why Egypt is the second-largest recipient of US aid is the same reason that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid - the Israel lobby wants it that way.
States aren't allowed to engage in treaties or establish their own taxes on goods entering or leaving the country.
Yes, but they are allowed to choose how to spend their own money. State governments have the same right not to trade with Israel if they don't want to that you or I do.
Per the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS, the right not to do business you don't want to do can be revoked by explicit legislation, but there is no such legislation in this case. In a comedic prequel to the Obamacare litigation, there used to be a law (adopted in response to the Arab boycott of Israel) mandating large multinational companies do business with Israel. Naturally, the mandate was phrased as a tax.
What can one learn about how to get away with serious crimes from this?
Very little. This isn't about a man getting away with serious crimes, it is about the fact that elites don't consider sexual abuse of chavettes a serious crime. It's a nothingburger when well-connected celebrities do it, it's a nothingburger when Mirpuri Pakistani gangs do it, and it's a nothingburger when Mum's new boyfriend does it.
After the Acosta plea deal and Epstein's "release" from "jail", he returned to being a star of the Manhattan social scene despite everyone knowing he was a sex offender. Nobody who mattered cared - apparently Neri Oxman's female graduate students were upset at being drafted into being part of a dog-and-pony show being put on for Epstein as a major donor to the MIT media lab, but Oxman's boss expected her to shut them up with the normal tools used by senior academics to discipline junior ones, and she did.
Sounds like the American version of calling a Baden-Wurttemberger a Bavarian. (I am not an expert on German regional politics, but Germans have confirmed that "Bavaria is the Texas of Germany" is a good approximation of the regional stereotype.)
If you like white cliffs, I strongly recommend the Seven Sisters walk from Seaford (or Exceat) to Eastbourne. It is the most popular day hike in the UK for good reasons. (There are better routes in the north, but they aren't within commuting distance of London)
The White Cliffs of Dover are where the North Downs meet the sea, the Seven Sisters are where the South Downs meet the sea. The absence of, well, Dover, means that the Seven Sisters have been less affected by development, and you also get Beachy Head thrown in, as well as nicer endpoints. (Seaford and Eastbourne are both traditional south coast resort towns with noticeably fewer chavs, foreigners, and annoying chav-vs-foreigner action than Dover).
The full walk from Seaford station to Eastbourne station is 13 1/2 miles, with the possibility to save about 1 1/2 miles by wading Cuckmere Haven at low tide. Most people get the 12X bus to Exceat (referred to as Seven Sisters Park Centre on the timetable - it is where the bridge over Cuckmere Haven is) for a 9 1/2 mile walk.
Slavery was universal in the ancient world, and in some form (state slavery, chattel slavery, serfdom/peonage) right up until shortly after the Industrial Revolution.
Chattel slavery was illegal in Christian Europe by the High Middle Ages. (This ban never extended to overseas possessions). Serfdom was abolished in the vast majority of France by 1318, and de facto in England by 1500. Serfdom also appears to be the exception rather than the rule in Northern Italy.
Western Europe produces a distinctive civilisation long before that civilisation industrialises.
In particular, a positive balance of trade requires negative net foreign investment in the United States by accounting identity. Trump continues to encourage foreign investment in the United States, and to discourage foreign investment by American companies.
- Prev
- Next
This is only true in the sense that anything bought out of state benefits is paid for by the state, including the food retirees eat etc. Motability is a scheme where people getting disability benefits can have their benefit paid directly to the leasing company, which mean they are more creditworthy and get lower lease rates than they would be if they had to remember to make their own car payments on time. There is no cost to the taxpayer beyond the benefits we would be paying these people anyway.
More options
Context Copy link