Tanista
22d ago
I don't think this would apply to "half of the right" like he said.
The right wing electorate was always the most favorable (a quick glance at Yougov had it ~70% approval). At best you can maybe say that the right wing elite were the ones split on doing what it took to confront the judiciary and activists. But even that doesn't seem to be true anymore. I don't think I've ever heard anyone spit the common cliches and platitudes like Jeremy Hunt and even he suggested simply leaving the ECHR and changing the law
There's always genetic analysis, I suppose.
There'll be internal resistance to it too, going by past evidence on the grounds that it doesn't work perfectly I'm sure.
And, of course, a country will likely feel it easier to reject someone whose citizenship was verified in some speculative way than if you caught them with passports and all.
What's the logic here? Too expensive?
Violation of their human rights to be sent to a potentially unsafe country. For some any country bad enough to deter people from showing up and making asylum claims is too bad to send potential refugees to. Rwanda is either too bad or too expensive for not being bad enough.
Also what happened to "send them back directly where they came from. Don't ask any questions, don't bother with process, just send them back"? There's no way a plane ticket costs more than these hotels.
The home countries may not want to receive them back, assuming they didn't burn all identifying documents. Which they do.
Tanista
26d ago
There are more ideological inputs that went into the modern American left than just Marxism/"tankie" European communism
The liberal meritocratic side of the party may need naive blank slateism more than the communists.
I'm ignorant about Mississippi, but I can only assume that the teacher's unions don't have the power they have in NY and Chicago.
That's not really an easily fixable problem once entrenched. Though the one in Chicago seems to have burned its popularity due to being particularly brazen with Brandon Johnson. On the other hand, they got what they wanted.
As a layman I think David is usually where both more conservative and more skeptical scholars can agree we can start looking for historicity. Some others push it till the Omrides but I think it's hard to argue that the mythicist side wouldn't have used the lack of anything like a stele as an argument so what's good for the goose and all that.
I guess I'm more of a mainstreamer here: things like the Exodus and Patriarchs seem like a total mess historically. Even if you grant there is some historic core you'll never agree on what it is. David's time seems like a good enough point to say the figures in the Bible have slipped out of myth.
I have seen some of Baden's interviews online, and read his Composition of the Pentateuch which is why I picked up the book. It's early days but I tend to lean towards what I think is Baden's own conclusion: there's a lot more explaining things in a more flattering light in David's legend than you'd expect if he didn't exist.
Which makes a good contrast with the show.
More options
Context Copy link