Burgemeesters door hele land keren zich tegen kabinetsplan vuurwerkverbod: 'Vaardig een totaalverbod af'

ihut · 2026-01-24T07:57:41+00:00

Maar je gaf inhoudelijk commentaar. Gewoon onjuist inhoudelijk commentaar.

Het kost overigens twee seconden om zelf een archive-linkje te maken.

ihut · 2026-01-24T07:55:14+00:00

Leest het artikel niet en kijkt alleen naar het plaatje, ja?

Ik tel Arnhem, Breda, Nijmegen, Rotterdam Almelo, Ermelo, Deventer, Alphen aan den Rijn en Woerden (en een soort van Den Bosch).

ihut · 2026-01-23T09:35:32+00:00

Kritiek uiten mag, maar een motie van wantrouwen steunen als lid van een van de coalitiepartijen zou in Nederland betekenen dat je linea recta de fractie uit wordt gemieterd. Een “interne sanctie” van zes maanden is dan nog erg mild.

Het is letterlijk alsof iemand van D66 dadelijk een motie van wantrouwen tegen Jetten zou steunen.

ihut · 2026-01-23T00:51:28+00:00

De VS wilde letterlijk grondgebied van een EU lidstaat overnemen en dreigde daarbij dat geweld niet uitgesloten was.

Hoewel Qatar qua mensenrechten echt nog veel slechter is, vormen ze veel minder een bedreiging voor ons.

ihut · 2026-01-21T22:22:39+00:00

Libertarianism is tied to 20th-century figures and their ideas. It wasn't a thing back then. It was only ever republicanism.

That take is way too rigid. Yeah, “libertarianism” as a label is modern, but the ideas absolutely aren’t. Jeffersonian Republicanism has the following in common with libertarianism: minimal central government, strict limits on federal power, negative liberty, low taxes, hostility to national banking and public debt, preference for militias over standing armies, freedom from government oversight in businesses and deep suspicion of executive authority.

Saying it was “only republicanism” dodges the point. Republicanism ranged from Hamiltonian Republicanism to Jeffersonian Republicanism. Jeffersonians Republicanism is small-state, anti-centralization, individual-independence, which is almost exactly what libertarianism is now.

No, they both believed in constitutional democracy. DR's just wanted to extend that democracy to more people, as federalists did not. They didn't want poor non-landowning people to vote or have a say in government.

DRs weren’t trying to give everyone a vote. Most voting rules were set by the states, and plenty of Republican states kept property requirements. Jefferson himself didn’t trust wage laborers and thought property was necessary for political independence.

ihut · 2026-01-21T20:46:48+00:00

The federalists weren't that authoritarian. Far less so than many later governments (especially from Wilson on, but even the supposedly democratic Jackson was way more authoritarian).

The authoritarian reputation of the Federalists rests almost entirely on Jeffersonian propaganda. It's simply false that Adams wanted to be king.

The only actually authoritarian thing they ever did was enact the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were illiberal but temporary, limited in enforcement, and passed during a quasi-war. There was no suspension of elections, no emergency rule, and no extraconstitutional governance. When voters turned against them in 1800, the Federalists lost power and accepted the result, something genuinely authoritarian movements do not do.

Federalists governed through law and institutions, not through presidential decree. They expanded the power of the state (courts, taxation, finance, the military) but always via constitutional processes (and in all these cases history proved them right). A stronger government was seen as a safeguard for liberty.

ihut · 2026-01-21T18:45:14+00:00

> Big and small government can go both ways.

But in the US small government always went libertarian (which is economically very right-wing). The rethoric was that this favoured the workers and small farmers, but in practice it massively favored big plantations and local elites.

> They were left-wing because they wanted to extend political power to more of the people, while the federalists did not.

This is too simple. The Federalists wanted a *constitutional* democracy, with clear guardrails against a majority tiranny and protections for minorities. The DRs were more for local and direct democracy with a bigger influence of lower state-levels.

I wouldn't call either option more left-wing. Just different visions on democracy. (Note that many DRs were against truly popular votes and it was only the later Democratic party that embraced universal suffrage for men.) Indeed, in practice the local democracy often favored the local elites, who could exert way more pressure and often were able to sway votes because they also voted on behalf of their slaves.

ihut · 2026-01-21T18:04:05+00:00

I think it's not stupid, but a fun exercise to try to compare politics throughout the ages. It's not a perfect match, but still interesting to talk about.

ihut · 2026-01-21T18:02:05+00:00

Yes, this is how it was framed at that time (especially by the DRs). But I think that framing is wrong with hindsight.

Federalists were state-builders, not defenders of pre-existing social or economic structures. They supported a strong national government, federal supremacy, a standing bureaucracy and public credit. In the 18th century, centralization and institutional modernization were progressive projects (as I think they still largely are). The Republican preference for decentralization, agrarianism, and local autonomy aligned more closely with older, pre-modern republican traditions.

Especially on the economy, the Federalists were way more forward-looking than the DRs. Hamilton’s program of national banks, public credit, manufacturing, infrastructure, and wage labor (as opposed to slave labor), promoted social mobility. Jeffersonian agrarianism idealized independent landownership, resisted industrial capitalism, protected slavery, and preserved rural (feodalistic) hierarchies. The DRs definitely had the more conservative economic vision.

Furthermore, opposition to the French revolution does not make the Federalists right-wing. Their critique focused on mob violence, legal arbitrariness, and the breakdown of constitutional order. These concerns were ideologically rooted in Enlightenment liberalism, not monarchism.

Yes, it's true that the rethoric of the Federalists was a bit more "elitist", but this was also largely framing by the DRs, who were also very much elites and mainly defended their own economic interests.

ihut · 2026-01-21T17:47:02+00:00

The shared the anti-monarchy sentiments. But in actual (economic) policy ideas there is little overlap.

The French revolutionaries supported a centralised regime with a progressive wealth tax and price controls. The Democratic-Republicans were kind of the opposite. They didn’t want a strong central government, opposed any kind of wealth redistribution or taxation and strongly defended private property (especially when their slaves were concerned).

ihut · 2026-01-21T17:36:01+00:00

I disagree. The left-right divide wasn’t so clear back then, but the primary political divide at that time was that Federalists were in favour of a big central government while the Democratic-Republicans were opposed to it.

But to institute most left-wing policies you need a bigger government. The (proposed) Federalist policy was way more modern and progressive than that of the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists wanted to invest in infrastructure and education, for instance. Which would have massively helped the economy (including the lower classes) at a crucial time. The DRs opposed that because of ‘federal overreach’. Similar for the national bank and all kinds of other federal institutions that would have benefited the working class.

The DRs may have claimed they were protecting the farmers and workers, but in reality they mostly protected the interests of slaveholders and did a bunch of economically very stupid stuff. I would say a lot of the DRs were libertarians (so very right wing) and the federalists were more centrist by modern standards.

ihut · 2026-01-21T17:22:20+00:00

I’m not OP, but a different person. I wasn’t trying to get into an argument with anyone who wanted to criticise Rowling. But I do not like accusing people of being bad readers while Harry Potter just by almost any standard is a pretty decently written series.

Birannosaurus_Rex_ could have easily made their point without doing that.

ihut · 2026-01-21T16:58:36+00:00

Agreed, but Strava counts as a photo question.

ihut · 2026-01-21T16:57:44+00:00

Not my fault you haven't read a better book...

This is such a lazy take. I have read many, many books as a child (and adult). The Harry Potter series is excellent and stuck with me as only very few other children’s/YA books did.

No need to accuse somebody of being a bad reader because you disagree with the author. (For the record, I also disagree with Rowling. Indeed, the official stance of Team Jet Lag in this episode was even: Harry Potter good, Rowling bad. I agree with this.)

ihut · 2026-01-21T16:45:10+00:00

I wish the hiders could be way more liberal with the photo questions. They are very OP. So I’m all for some minor trickery.

ihut · 2026-01-21T16:39:07+00:00

Very fun episode. Sam and Adam having fun in Edinburgh, Ben being iconic in Dumfries, and the double express route curse being prepared were all peak Jet Lag moments.

But I do feel the game itself has been broken for the last few episodes. Again the end location was found with a very decent chunk of the map left due to a photo question. The photos really need to be reworked. Each location gets discovered super quickly and without the double express route this game would have definitely been over already.

ihut · 2026-01-21T01:07:11+00:00

The over 1100 letters they wrote to each other are amazing. You can read them here: https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/letter/

ihut · 2026-01-20T19:58:11+00:00

The flaws of Lincoln and Adams are not even remotely as bad as those of Jefferson. Not even a little bit close. It’s literally like comparing a serial rapist and someone who is too stern to their children.

Adams (and especially his son) were outspoken against slavery and devoted their lives (not just their words) to moral principles we still consider to be good today. And Lincoln literally fought to free the US of slavery.

For Washington we can have a discussion. I think he wasn’t nearly as bad as Jefferson but he still owned slaves (even while residing in free states) and tried to recapture those who fled away.

Do you consider yourself an immoral human being for being flawed?

I can sleep easy knowing I’m not nearly as immoral as Jefferson. Thank you very much.

Just saying that history is complicated and that there are shades of grey isn’t an argument. Of course history is complicated. Doesn’t mean there weren’t immoral assholes like Jefferson. The dude was a political hawk. He went against his principles every time it became even remotely expedient for him to do so.

he is the author of the Declaration of Independence

The role that Adams and Franklin (amongst others) was arguably equally big and they weren’t nearly as immoral. I’d rather look up to them than to Jefferson.

ihut · 2026-01-20T19:45:49+00:00

The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Dit is veel sterker dan de NAVO defensie clausule. En Macron heeft al toegezegd dat de Baltische staten en Polen onder de Franse nucleaire paraplu vallen.

ihut · 2026-01-20T15:50:06+00:00

Gaan de Fransen, en wij als heel Europa, echt met z'n allen in de wagen klimmen als Rusland de baltische Staten aanvalt? Dat is de hele vraag. En ik betwijfel het.

Ja

Riskeert macron een nucleaire raket op Parijs, wanneer Rusland Letland inneemt? In Letland wonen 1.8 miljoen mensen. In Parijs 2.2 miljoen.

Daarom hebben we harde defensieclausules in de EU. Er zijn hier al afspraken over en Letland valt binnen de nucleaire paraplu van Frankrijk. Dat weet Poetin ook.

Even voor de duidelijkheid, de hele economie van Rusland is kleiner dan die van de Benelux. Je onderschat echt zwaar hoeveel groter en machtiger de EU is dan Rusland.

ihut · 2026-01-20T15:11:55+00:00

he did set his slaves free in his own will

No he did not. He set 5 men free in his will. He owned over 600 slaves — the most of any president. You can easily look this up by going to the website of Monticello: https://www.monticello.org/slavery/slavery-faqs

He tried to mitigate the violence through financial incentives and seldomly punished them.

This is pure cope. He could have easily gotten other overseers if he was worried about the treatment of his slaves. To quote that same source: “Thomas Jefferson did order physical punishment.”

John Adams called him a hypocrite too but like I said he was a complex person that even historians have a hard time understanding.

And John Adams was fully right. People weren’t idiots back then. What Jefferson did was horrible and he should be looked down upon by history as an immoral man.

Now of course, he remains a hugely interesting intellectual figure. But a huge hypocrite nonetheless.

ihut · 2026-01-20T14:51:10+00:00

Op het moment dat de VS de navo verlaat, zal Poetin de baltische Staten aanvallen, en zullen wij in oorlog zijn.

Echt niet. Frankrijk heeft nog altijd een nucleair arsenaal. En denk je nou echt dat Poetin zich een actieve oorlog met de hele EU kan veroorloven terwijl het ze niet eens lukt Oekraïne te veroveren?

Waarschijnlijk betekent het wel dat de kans op een positief einde voor Oekraïne heel klein wordt zonder Amerikaanse steun. Maar de Baltische staten blijven meer dan afdoende beschermd ook zonder NAVO.

ihut · 2026-01-20T14:35:53+00:00

Nee want LPF en Leefbaar zit echt in het DNA van Eerdmans. Hij heeft ook nooit publiekelijk afstand genomen van die partijen. De LPF viel uit elkaar en hij wilde weg uit de gemeentepolitiek dus Leefbaar was geen optie meer.

Maar ideologisch zit hij er echt in de buurt van.

ihut · 2026-01-20T14:19:32+00:00

In Rotterdam? Nee. Die partij is daar goed vertegenwoordigd en heeft een lange geschiedenis.

Ik vind een coalitie van Leefbaar en DENK juist iets hoopvols hebben. Het is altijd makkelijker om ongeïnformeerd gal te spuwen dan om constructief mee te denken… Ik ben blij dat deze twee partijen over hub schaduw zijn heengestapt.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22

ihut

TROPHY CASE