An engineer (IT). Born in USSR, living in Ireland. Open for debates. If you disagree with any of my positions: write me, let's clarify the positions and have a live streamed debate.
172 followers 41 following 775 posts
view profile on Bluesky
I don't really get what stops him from doing it right now. He already did everything else: * Committed a war crime. * Disobeyed constitution and a lot of laws. * Imposed tariffs and and war like emergencies without Congress approval. * etc. So, what would stop him, if he would declare martial law?
Not "conservative", but "far right". Just open on Wikipedia what is conservatism, then google what are "American Values", and stop misusing this term.
I don't know who is Ezra Klein, but I imagine the is about the fact that Charlie Kirk was very active on organizing grassroots movements, going and doing political activism and so on; instead of just complaining on bsky/twitter. If not only far right practiced that so much, may be Trump wouldn't won
Trying to be "exactly as Charlie Kirk" is generally not a good idea, though.
Until the Jury of Peers would declare him guilty, whatever FBI says worth less than nothing (with Kash Patel as the director)
Could somebody remind me, when was the last time when a political assassination (/attempt) in the US was done not by a registered republican?
On the death of Charlie Kirk: Separate the relief you feel from his absence from the glee you feel at the irony of him being shot. The latter is making you a monster. Stay empathic. Also stay committed to your values (e.g. rule of law if it is a value of yours).
He is both: a cause and a victim.
[2/2] The problem with extrajudicial violence is not that it is "violence" (we do respect police, army, etc, despite their profession is violence). The problem is that it is unnecessary and extrajudicial. You give monopoly on violence to the state only to make sure it is used properly and checked.
[1/2] Hitler also used mainly words. If words promote hatred, violence and so on, they could be much much worse than direct violence. Quoting Kirk himself: > I... think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment [...].
Do I understand correctly that you already want to politically capitalize on the death of one of your own? And as always through lies, but this is besides the point. Could you just act like a normal human being for a few days?
Violence is always bad. But the title is invalid: There is nothing "conservative" about being anti-immigrant in the US. Being conservative means trying to preserve values, culture, traditions, etc. While the US tradition is to be immigrant country with a liberal democracy.
Would be nice to also add November onto this chart (to see where Russia realized Trump is gonna be the POTUS).
And also: a human being is still a human being regardless of citizenship.
British economic sentiment is following the US in becoming an increasingly partisan signal. There has been a red-blue sentiment gap for decades, but it’s widening (data: @ipsosintheuk.bsky.social / @keiranpedley.bsky.social)
This is a completely useless comment. For comparison, Toxidrone spent time to educate me a bit: I've learned about "admission committees"; but your comment has absolutely zero substance.
[2/2] And I've lazily asked an LLM and it claims that "admission committees" indeed have right to this kind of private discrimination, and it was uphold by the Supreme Court, but it forbids direct racial discrimination (so you need an upholdable pretend reason).
[1/2] Since my interlocutor decided to quit from this conversation, just for archive (for anybody reading this). I've checked a little bit: They say Haaretz is factually credible but with heavy bias. The concerning claim in the report are "admission committees" that discriminate against arabs.
P.S.: Although it is kinda sad that you decided to resign when a single link from you would've changed my mind about the whole conversation we had above. And calling somebody who wants a strong evidence for a strong claim -- bad faith: is just sad.
In any case, I understand you lost trust, but if you'll either find the same claim confirmed by verifiable macro data, or a similar report by somebody like AP, still, please send to my direction (if you'll have time and desire). It feels important. But otherwise, thanks for the conversation. Bye.
Why would I look it up, if the report is issued by an uncertain media and it generalizes over few anecdotes, instead of providing verifiable macro data? Through cherry-picking with anecdotes you can paint any picture. If the report's claim is correct, then data should be there. If it isn't then...
This is the standard that I always apply to everything political (to make extraordinary claims). If you use more relaxed standards then I am sorry, but the problem here is not being good/bad faith.
I am, and you can reference the pages directly, I can bypass them. While in archive you can find retracted pages (because of mistakes in the report)
Also again, I need macro numbers, not just few random anecdotes.
Also there is likely a reason why you had to pull this out of archive, instead of referencing the page directly.
I am uncertain about haaretz: I've never spent time to actually validate the quality of their reporting.
Is this is a broad phenomena (and not just few anecdotes generalized by biased media), and institutions don't restore non-discriminatory justice then it would be an example of institutionalized racial discrimination in this conversation. If you can find that in reputable media I'll partially admit.
Again, it is just a semi-joke. Don't take this seriously.
I'm aware. But in the context before Trump (or better before 2023): If Palestinians would just want to surrender and say "OK, there is no Palestine, everything is Israel" then Israel can either accept Palestinians into citizens or indeed become an apartheid state (and world pariah).
It is a form of private discrimination, that is generally outlawed in developed liberal democracies.
A sad half-joke: An easy way out is: recognize there is only Israel (but remember in your mind that is Palestine), get the majority votes, elect your party into Knesset and takeover the country and rename it to Palestine :)
Yes, we've been here. While both sides recognize the existence of Palestine on this territory, there is no automatic entitlement to Israeli citizenship, thus you could be discriminated by nationality (which is disgusting, but not apartheid).
Just in my mind, the clear separation is how they treat theirown citizens: do their institutions segregate citizens by "race" or not. And I've never seen a single strong example of institutions to segregate citizens by "race". So I just do not understand how do you fit that into the definition.
What is the objective criteria you use to decide if this is an apartheid or not? (that does not contradict the well established definition of "apartheid")
P.P.S.: But to be fair, with the 2023-2025 progress Israel is closer and closer to becoming an apartheid state. It is just not there, just yet.
P.S.: Or until they'll start breaking theirown law to enforce racial segregation.
I've misread. Sorry. Missed the word "want". But if they only support this, then again: until Knesset (or another relevant body, e.g. the constitutional court) will support that as well, it is not an apartheid. People can want whatever, but until institutions support that, it is not apartheid.
P.S.: I realized I misread your comment. I missed word "want". So you haven't claimed it happened.
"Voicing support". But no actual deportation happened, right? This is what I mean by "until Knesset says so, it is not that important".
This is just plainly false. This is so blatantly stupid that I have to mute you, sorry.
As I said: > About polls likely true
Is the claim that they generally don't follow theirown law?
Sorry, bsky is a terrible place to discuss this topic (too much nuances). We can schedule an over-voice discussion if you want. I'm pretty open to be educated on this topic.
Whatever Netanyahu wants it cannot affect the country territory until Knesset would vote for that. About polls likely true but until Knesset does the same it does not matter that much. About Israeli citizens expelled because of being Arabs -- I'm unaware. Do you mind to share the strongest source?
Here our factual data also diverge, but this is not a primary point, so unimportant.
I haven't observed Israel/Palestine for like ~3 months already, sorry about that. Netanyahu is not a lawmaking body. In a liberal democracy generally to annex territory one needs to pass a law / amend the constitution.
> says it will never allow a Palestinian state Here our factual data diverge. Have Knesset voted for that by the majority somewhere? To my understanding Israel supported existence of Palestine state until 2023, and tried to negotiate with it multiple times.
Yeah, here I generally agree. This seems to be what Israeli far right wants (and that seems to have power right now). When this will happen and they'll still not provide citizenship, then it will become to be an apartheid.
Well. For Israel to be forced to provide citizenship to everybody born in West Bank, Palestinians must recognize West Bank as Israel. If West Bank is not Israel (but another country: Palestine) then, unfortunately, international norms allow Israel not to give citizenship to people.
Here I agree. The whole term "race" is for people not understanding biology. There is no developed terminology to be able to express yourself briefly on bluesky to reference to externally visible phenotypical traits (thus layman's "race" comes in).
No, the argument is different. Israel discriminates by nationality, while South Africa discriminated by race. If you are an Israeli citizen, then you are judged in normal civil courts, you have full rights, etc.
OK, but how is it relevant to discrimination of people who are already citizens (which is the topic of this thread)?
> "but Palestinians in the West Bank aren't Israeli citizens!" You will say, not understanding what a bantustan is I don't really see how it is connected. In South Africa citizenship (to black people) was issued by South Africa, so all of them (blacks and whites) were citizens of South Africa.
Again: I'm aware about general differences between normal civil court and the one where palestinians are judged, this is a really bad/immoral situation, yes; but this is irrelevant to the conversation about racial segregation within israelis.
Again: I'm aware, this is really bad, but again is irrelevant to the conversation how the racially segregate within Israelis.
I'm aware. And this is a very bad situation. However, it is irrelevant to the conversation how they segregate by race within Israelis.
And before you begin, just a reminder: we are talking here about institutionalized discrimination, not about some private discrimination in some anecdotes.
Well, I've seen this claims (rarely), but it was never properly substantiated. When you rigorously dive into that with somebody who makes this claim it always in the end appears that no: they don't discriminate against theirown own (Israili) citizens who are muslims or identify as arabs/palestinians
Do you understand the difference between race and nationality? Apartheid is about institutionalized *racial* segregation.
> Go back and read the last line of the post you are trying to defend. It's an ad hominem attack directed right at me. -> > You are just emotionally charged by somebody against her, but the reality is different. Ah, indeed. I admit. This is not what I wanted to say. I was wrong here. Sorry.
Ultimately it depends on your citizenships. If you have citizenship that Israel like and do not have (and never has) citizenship that Israel does not like, then you are only slightly discriminated against. But if you unluckly to have some they don't like then you are heavily discriminated against.
One last time: Apartheid is a system with institutionalized racial segregation.
A post is ad hominem only if I try to attack a persona instead of arguments. I did not attack a persona. About Biden the last time: The difference is that Biden is agree to fiercely attack HAMAS, but against genocide; while Trump is for whatever Netanyahu wants.
It was never "ad hominem": I never commented on you, I only commented on your comment. > Saying "Israel told us they aren't committing genocide" isn't exonerating. I agree. I'm only explaining the difference between Biden and Trump.
You do understand that a New Yorker is generally an US citizen (regardless of if they are white or not)? So it is again a discrimination by nationality, not by race.
OK, you still cannot comprehend that that was the plan to have two completely sovereign/independent states, that have full autonomy to build army decide who can move freely inside the country, etc. You can reject reality or you can learn the history. I don't care, but I see no point to continue.
I can answer this. But first I need you to admit that you've mistaken (or lied) about "no provision". Then I can explain what are the other possible mistakes :) But if you are not going to admit mistakes then there is no point to continue.
> First, you said Harris didn’t talk in code. Lol. Are you serious? OK, let me rephrase: "this is what two-state solution **IS**". > Second, no proposal by the us ever had any provision for Palestinians to have complete self rule. Lie. Partition plan 1947.
Biden was informed that those bombings are against HAMAS.
The whole comment is just a bunch of lies (except for enforcing ICC warrants, because the US is not a member of Rome Statute). For example: www.bbc.com/news/world-m... No, she never supported genocide. You are just emotionally charged by somebody against her, but the reality is different.
P.S.: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sta...
> could live with complete autonomy? This is what the two state solution extremely heavily implied. And always did, even since the partition plan was first introduced.
First of all, apartheid is racial, while Israel discriminates by nationality. It is not apartheid. Secondly, no: generally, Harris does not talk in code. Thirdly, no: two state solution is when Israel and Palestine are two sovereign states (where Palestine decide for themselves how to live).
If Netanyahu would still continue the war or/and would do what he is doing now, yes, she change the policy. The idea between Biden and Netanyahu was that Netanyahu is trying to target HAMAS (as retaliation for Oct 7), and Biden gave a lot of credit to Netanyahu. Now nothing holds back Netanyahu.
To complete the quote: > [...], in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel. But we must have a two-state solution, where we can rebuild Gaza, where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.
Well, in 2024 people had 3 choices: * Vote for Trump. * Vote for Harris. * Not vote at all (including votes for RFK and others). Fascist voted for Trump, while non-fascists decided not to vote for Harris (and some even decided to vote for Trump). So yeah, I hope you are happy with the result, now.
Where Harris stated she would give a blank check for genocide? As I said, she was against both: genocide and terrorism. She believes/believed Israel has full right to defend (from terrorist attacks), but at the same time has no genocide people.
If it was just for a small gadget, you'd use Arduino or STM32 or some other normal MCU. Given it is specifically 8008, I'd assume it is going to be a replica of some of the first personal computers :)
Here's Trump claiming that: edition.cnn.com/2025/06/18/p... As for people believing him, there were countless examples during the campaign. E.g. "Arab Americans for Trump".
Meanwhile Trump received like $200M from pro-Israel groups?
No, Harris does not support genocide. Trump lied that he is for peace (and for him: "Netanyahu, do WTF do you want out there!"), while Harris was against both: genocide and terrorism. If you don't see how much worse things became in Gaza (in 2025) then you actually never cared about Gaza.
All the hurdle just because NVidia still won't make the driver (including the libraries) opensource.
> ... now ... First of all, software is few orders of magnitude more complex nowadays. Secondly, what exactly just worked? DOS hanged (because it does not really protect itself from applications), NC consumed too much RAM (and often wasn't running), etc/etc
Well... MAGA pushed very hard for that Epstein conspiracy theory and partially justified election of Trump by that. Then it back fired after Trump took the office (because there is likely just no "Epstein list"). And anti-MAGA is now just using this case to put pressure on Trump. So it'll continue.
> Not far right, just a worried father ... a worried father that wants to build an anti-liberal ultranationalistic ethnic state.
Also how far is he on reducing the deficit by $2T/year?
He likely was shot. He likely won. And there is likely no list at all. However, also: He is likely the worst president in the US history. He is an authoritarian right wing populist. He highly likely colluded with Russia (to win elections). He incited an insurrection. And so on and so forth.
Can you just answer a question? I understand you have some extreme examples, but **even in** these extreme examples you still have to create jobs (to make it work sustainably and successfully).
Trump did more than enough to do not use weak arguments. Let's not mention the suckets&losers thing in the lists like that, since it does not have hard proves.
How is something a successful business, if it haven't created a single job?
I didn't know US folks know this meme :)
I really need to know if there’s, like, one guy at every hedge fund whose whole job is just refreshing the docket nonstop so he can make a trade the second a tariff ruling drops
The "manifesto" is just plain English written with Cyrillic :)
MAGA won't recognize the trolling, they'll think this is the normal way how Newsom speaks in general.
Hyprland is surprisingly nice :)
The reason it is lifetime appointment, is to make them independent. E.g. since President has a huge say in who is going to be the next supreme court judge, if you have a time-limited appointment, every judge will be incentivized to play along. Although you can just make that a one term service.
In any case. Thanks for the answer. Disregard me for now :)
P.S.: Even if you open "День России" on wiki, the second thing you see is:
It's not that ribbons used for letters/numbers specifically. But in general the idea of using ribbons of this style for any pseudo-patriotic banners. Almost any propagandistic poster/banner by Russia would have a ribbon like that somewhere. You can try to google "день победы", "день россии", etc
