leicsmac

Is it possible that this Greenland matter might incite enough Republican Congress members to grow a conscience (or just self-preservation) for impeachment proceedings to be viable?

More to the point of "if there are actually any historians left at that time". Do agree it's very all or nothing right now, which is one of the reasons why I take the threats so seriously.

I think we might want to wait a few decades to see the overall level of harm done before coming to that judgement, to be honest.

He's sad that he's now likely going to miss some new "brown people suffering and dying" content for his spank bank.

If that was believed vague, then answering it with what appears to be equal vagueness perhaps isn't the best way forward. No offence taken, but the laws of physics and their consequences are what they are, we can't hide from them and the only choice, politically or otherwise, is to take action against the incoming problems or not. Pretending that they don't exist won't end well for anyone. In any case, @Sampson makes a better argument upstream in why checks and balances in government policymaking are a good thing and why anyone wanting to get rid of them is not. Edit: just noticed something, and I'm interested to know what kind of resident in the UK would use "offense" with the "s" rather than the "c".

The argument is as follows: Any of the alternatives (apart from possibly the Tories) will at least give a chance to prevent the likely collapse of human civilisation by actually treating issues regarding the biosphere with something approaching the seriousness they deserve. Every other policy concern has less human (and other) lives at stake as a consequence and therefore strictly pragmatically is of lesser importance. But hey, if the future beyond line of sight both spatially and temporally doesn't concern a person, that's their prerogative.

An accidental consequence to fit a problem that didn't and doesn't exist in the first place. I'm sorry, but this is still ridiculous and unnecessary no matter which way someone slices it.

Sounds like something out of "The Thick of It".

If additional defence of Greenland were his only ambition here, it could have been achieved much more easily and with much less bother than this method. Please, put away even the inference that was the original intent or that the outcome justifies what's happened here. Edit: to say nothing of the fact that additional "defence" of that area is entirely unproven in necessity and therefore ridiculously unwarranted anyway.

I'm inclined to think the opposite is true, for reasons elaborated upon upstream. What a world indeed. Sadly, given what we know about the man, also a predictable one. Which makes the decision to give him power again and also to apologise for him either in the US or here, given the consequences, all the more absurd.

... what was it that Lenin said about decades happening in weeks? And, I fear, in terms of natural events (that may also have corollaries in a very human response to them) we've seen nothing yet there.

I think this all just adds to the idea that the next GE outcome is pure roulette at this point in time, and there's still over three years to go.

Gotta try, even though I do know what you mean.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7vdpy1l2vo Interesting piece from the Beeb about a schism within the Afghan Taliban.

"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part."

I think what you mean is "at what point is it a confirmed conspiracy rather just Internet theory?" because if it becomes true it's still a conspiracy... but to answer the question, I reckon it hits that mark when there's statistical proof, that takes the form of empirical evidence from sources known and agreed to be trustworthy, that the party thought to benefit from the conspiracy are benefitting from it in a statistically significant fashion (eg. on a consistent repeated basis, over time). Yes, that burden of proof is pretty high, but given the significance of what is being theorised, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Well, that's certainly an interestingly conspiratorial way of framing the matter.

See above, think my reply there covers this. I will add though that (again like others), the actions of some Maccabi fans goes a little bit beyond some controversial songs.

Ain't that the damn truth.

Which is a point I haven't personally argued against. My point, in return, is that, with all that in mind, police departments in the UK shouldn't let the above make them treat that fanbase with kid gloves the next time they have a tie against an UK team.

With respect, these posts make it seem like the Maccabi fans are entirely blameless (despite the wallpaper and cracks statement about them being "no angels"), in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary. Yes, this was a screw up. But I'm also hoping some common ground can be found and hold both that belief and the belief that local fuzz need to be aware of problematic elements within the Maccabi fanbase and (this is the important part) act accordingly to address it when they next roll into town, rather than being afraid of doing so because of what's happened here.

Which is all firstly fair to comment, and secondly does little to address the veracity of Maccabis recent history with unrest. Like I said (or at least inferred) above, the ban certainly appears to be heavy-handed in this case but that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, that this was discriminatory all the way through and that local police departments shouldn't treat them similarly to other clubs with possibly problematic fan sections in the future. Hooligans are hooligans, if they've demonstrated that they are so. Where they're from and what their ideology is for doing it shouldn't be relevant.

I'd actually disagree with this to a degree, I reckon comparatively to a lot of places the UK is actually pretty sensible in terms of organised religion and its place in political policymaking in a way a lot of other places aren't. At least at the present time. Sure, there's a certain amount of bark, but thankfully precious little bite.

A more than cursory glance shows the reporting of what the Maccabi fans got up to in Amsterdam. I mean, all of the sources talking about it could be lying or exaggerating, but... Add to that the local derby incident with Hapoel last November, and I'm not sure it's a massive stretch to say there might be an issue there.

What a bloody mess. That being said, should the response instead have been typical of away fans where there might be an element of trouble ala Napoli etc, given that Maccabi fans causing bother is still a matter of record?