It was kind of inevitable, unfortunately. After we impeach one of them for even legitimate wrongdoing, if they do not counter-impeach us, they lose perceived legitimacy, which weakens them.
They had no other strategically sound moves, when you consider their goal of hanging onto power regardless of the wishes of the voting public.
That’s a clever line of attack, but having an opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Otherwise there would be a whole shit-ton of recusal happening every day.
A conflict of interest usually involves some form of monetary compensation or other fiscal benefit.
It’s kinda hard to wrap your brain around sometimes, but bad people can be patriots too. When you have a proper, full-scale war going on, these people become a resource like any other.
Anti-corruption is great during peace time. Necessary, even. But it cannot always be the top priority in all situations, that’s just not practical.
I would even argue that if you’re not continually adjusting your priorities as situations develop, you’re not a very good leader. So yeah, buy his guns now. Throw him in prison later. Can even confiscate back some of the money you paid. You have to win first though.
Intelligent is where it goes wrong. They only claim to like intelligence, because that sounds good to claim. They’re actually extremely anti-intellectual in basically every way you can be. Real jocks vs nerds stuff, for people who never outgrew a HS mentality.
I would describe it as a cacaphonic symphony that you eventually get used to. It packs as much information into one sense as you can get from your other four put together.
Much like how you can discern an individual instrument type in a symphony, sight lets you discern individual objects from afar, and gives you a mostly accurate summary of its basic properties.
Also much like with sound, it can be very appealing or unappealing, depending. There’s an intrinsic beauty to the sense itself though. Every object has color, for instance, and color is more like smell. It can give you hints about what something is, but its mostly an arbitrary blend of different “flavors” that combine to create more complex examples.
It’s the super-sense, the one sense that binds them all. When one of your other four detects something, your first instinct is to locate it with sight to determine more information before you do anything else. You “look at it” first. Almost without fail.
No, I don’t think the brain really works that way, except in the very broadest sense.
LLMs. Despite how absurdly useful they are, I can recall a time when I had the skills of remembering phone numbers naturally and being able to easily navigate with no maps of any kind.
These skills have deteriorated significantly in the past 10 years, and they’re not the only ones. The common thread they all have is my smartphone replaced them.
I fear losing a skill that is less innocuous, from the new tech effectively replacing my need to practice it.
I can still hear the theme song…
I’m discussing the specific choice of what rhetoric they decide to use, not why they are using it. Why they are using it is fairly obvious at this point.
There are many different lines, arguments, whatever that could be employed, though. By paying attention to which ones are specifically chosen, you can learn more about their target audience, which is larger than simply fans of a white, ultra-nationalist ethno-state. Hence their need to continue to use rationalizations like this, instead of being forthright about their intentions.
This one in particular surprised me, as I didn’t foresee it. They’re usually more predictable than that.